Failing to fulfill family obligations can lead to disinheritance or loss of a forced heirship share, but removing such a relative from inheritance requires specific legal formalities.
Disinheriting a Relative Who Broke Family Ties
To dispose of their assets according to their own will, a future testator can draw up a will. However, this solution does not preclude future claims from family members entitled to a forced heirship share. These include the spouse, children (grandchildren and subsequent descendants), and the testator’s parents who would be entitled to inheritance under statutory succession. The legal instrument through which a testator can deprive specific relatives of even their forced heirship share is disinheritance.
The Civil Code lists possible reasons for disinheritance. One of these concerns situations where a person entitled to a forced heirship share persistently fails to fulfill family duties towards the testator.
Defining Persistent Failure of Family Duties
The regulations indicate that this is not about a single act; it must be repeated or long-lasting enough to meet the condition of persistence. The Civil Code does not define the failure to fulfill family duties itself. In each case, it may look different, and court judgments provide assistance.
Example of Persistent Failure
“Persistent failure to fulfill family duties towards the testator, constituting grounds for disinheritance within the meaning of Article 1008 pts 1 and 3 of the Civil Code, is the long-term or repeated neglect of the heir’s material and emotional needs, or acting in a manner contrary to the principles of social coexistence, which means that the entitled person’s conduct must be objectively reprehensible. The existence of a situation where assistance and benefits due as family duties were not provided is not sufficient to assess that a descendant persistently fails to fulfill family duties towards the testator. The proper interpretation of Article 1008 pt 3 of the Civil Code indicates that it refers to a state where, despite the existence of such a need and the testator’s expectation, the descendant persistently refuses to fulfill these duties” – for example, stated the Court of Appeal in Warsaw in the justification of its judgment of September 22, 2020 (V ACa 174/20).
Example of Culpability in Breaking Ties
“Key to the possibility of disinheritance due to failure to fulfill family duties is also the issue of fault (responsibility) for the situation. If – which is common in practice – someone breaks contact with family, they cannot later disinherit due to a lack of ties. According to the principle nemo turpitudinem suam allegans auditur, one who is at fault for breaking family ties cannot derive beneficial legal effects from their own wrongdoing. In particular, non-fulfillment of family duties will not occur if the testator evades accepting offered help, or in the absence of their necessary cooperation, or when refusing to accept help” – we read in the justification of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Poznań of April 5, 2018 (I ACa 1095/17).
For disinheritance to be effective, the reason specified in the will must actually exist. The testator cannot disinherit an entitled person if they have forgiven them.
Neglecting Relatives as Grounds for Unworthiness to Inherit
The institution of unworthiness to inherit produces effects similar to disinheritance for an heir. Here, too, it involves depriving a potential heir of inheritance and a forced heirship share. However, these two solutions differ diametrically. First and foremost, an heir can be declared unworthy of inheriting only after the testator’s death. This is done by a court in proceedings initiated by a person with a legal interest.
For many years, the law indicated three possible grounds in this regard. After changes in inheritance law, which came into force in November 2023, there are now five reasons. The new provisions apply mainly to situations that arose after November 15, 2023.
Currently, therefore, an heir may also be deemed unworthy by a court if they persistently evaded fulfilling the duty of care for the testator, particularly arising from parental authority, guardianship, serving as a foster parent, the marital duty of mutual assistance, or the duty of mutual respect and support between parent and child. This also applies to the evasion of performing a maintenance obligation towards the testator, determined by a court decision, settlement concluded before a court or other authority, or another agreement.
Declaring an heir unworthy is not automatic. The burden of proving such conduct rests with the person who files a lawsuit to declare an heir unworthy of inheriting (e.g., another heir). The plaintiff should do this within one year from the day they learned of the reason for unworthiness, but no later than three years after the testator’s death.
An heir cannot be declared unworthy if the testator forgave them.
When Principles of Social Coexistence May Reduce Forced Heirship Share
Although the regulations do not directly specify such a solution, judicial precedent often indicates that it is possible to reduce a forced heirship share due to the principles of social coexistence referred to in Article 5 of the Civil Code. However, as the Supreme Court emphasizes, such a solution can only be applied exceptionally.
Supreme Court Stance on Reducing Forced Heirship
“The prevailing view is that the application of Article 5 of the Civil Code is not excluded even for subjective inheritance rights. The court’s assessment of whether a claim for payment of a sum corresponding to the amount of the forced heirship share constitutes an abuse of right should not overlook that the rights of the person entitled to a forced heirship share serve to fulfill the moral obligations that the testator has towards their closest relatives. Depriving a person entitled to a forced heirship share under Article 5 of the Civil Code can only occur in exceptional situations, and thus also those not covered by the content of Articles 928 and 1008 of the Civil Code; this is also possible due to the conduct of the entitled person towards the testator, as well as towards the person obliged to pay the forced heirship share, being contrary to the principles of social coexistence” – emphasized the Supreme Court in its order of August 27, 2020 (V CSK 173/20).
Example of Reduced Forced Heirship Share Claim
Ms. Agata was omitted from her mother’s will. The testatrix bequeathed the entire inheritance to her sister, Magdalena. For this reason, Ms. Agata filed a lawsuit for a forced heirship share. In response to the lawsuit, aunt Magdalena invoked Article 5 of the Civil Code, pointing out that the testatrix’s daughter did not care for her mother during her illness and did not visit her for many years.
Whether there are indeed reasons to reduce the forced heirship share in such a case will be examined by the court.
Summary
It is important to remember that each such inheritance case is decided based on specific circumstances, which is why court decisions may vary. It is worth considering the possibility of seeking professional legal assistance from a lawyer or legal counsel.