The Action for Invalidation of an Inheritance Certificate Is Not Negatory and Is Subject to the Statute of Limitations - Civil Cassation Court Within the Supreme Court

The plaintiff indicated that after the death of his mother in 1998, the inheritance was opened, he was the heir of the first line according to the law and accepted the inheritance, because he lived with his mother at the time of her death. The plaintiff's father, who was not in a registered marriage with his mother, also lived with them at the time.

Having applied for the inheritance after the death of his father in 2020, the plaintiff learned that in 2012 the father had obtained a certificate of inheritance after the death of his mother according to the law on the basis of certificates on cohabitation with the testatrix issued by the village council, afterwards he bequeathed the property to the defendant.

The plaintiff asked the court to invalidate the inheritance certificate issued to his father since the father who was not married to the mother was not the first-line heir after her death.

The court of first instance dismissed the substantiated claim due to the omission of the statute of limitations without valid reasons, the application of which was claimed by the defendant. The court of appeal overturned the decision of the district court, granted the claim, stating that it was a negatory action and did not fall within the statute of limitations.

The joint chamber of the Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court annulled the decision of the court of appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance. Ensuring the unity of case law, the joint chamber of the Civil Cassation Court made the following legal conclusions.

A negatory action is a claim by the owner, who actually owns the property, to remove obstacles to the use or disposal of this property. The specified method of protection is aimed at eliminating violations of the rights of the owner that do not involve his being deprived of property.

At the same time, the fact of issuing an inheritance certificate and registering ownership of the inherited property for one of the heirs creates a situation in which the second of the heirs is deprived of the right to the inheritance in general and cannot formalize his right in particular.

There is no nullity in private law for an inheritance certificate. The Civil Code of Ukraine only provides for the possibility to bring an action for the invalidation of such a certificate (Article 1301). The inheritance certificate is contested only at the initiative of the interested person by presenting a demand for its recognition as invalid (action to contest the certificate).

The provisions of Ch. 19 of the Civil Code of Ukraine establish a general rule on the extension of the statute of limitations to all civil law claims, except for those specified in Art. 268 of the Civil Code of Ukraine as an exception.

In part 1 of Art. 268 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the legislator determined which claims were not subject to the statute of limitations. Part 2 of this Article stipulates that other requirements not subject to the statute of limitations may be established by law. Among the list of requirements to which, in accordance with the law, the statute of limitations does not apply, there is no requirement to invalidate the inheritance certificate.

The fact of issuing a certificate of ownership to the heir in the order of succession to the inherited property, to which another heir is entitled, or the issuance of a certificate to a person who does not have the right to inheritance, proves a violation of the rights and interests of the person, and that is why the statute of limitations must be linked to the fact of issuing an inheritance certificate to another of the heirs (or to a person who is not an heir), and if the person whose rights and interests are violated by the issuance of such a certificate proves that he became aware of the existence of such a certificate that violates his rights later, then the statute of limitations should be associated precisely with such a moment.

The facts that the plaintiff did not receive an inheritance certificate and the legislator did not determine the period during which the heir must formalize his inheritance rights cannot confirm that such an heir did not have the right to bring an action, since the issuance of an inheritance certificate to another of the heirs (or to a person who is not an heir) prevents the completion of registration of his inheritance rights to another of the heirs who has not received the inheritance certificate, and therefore justifies the emergence of this heir's right to bring an action in the substantive aspect.

The court of first instance assessed the plaintiff's arguments about the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for bringing an action, taking into account the defendant's arguments about the omission of the limitation period, and did not establish the validity of the reasons for such a long omission. The plaintiff should have learnt about the violation of his right by the disputed certificate of inheritance within a reasonable time after its issuance.

Resolution of the Supreme Court of September 05, 2022, in case No. 385/321/20 (proceedings No. 61-9916сво21) – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/106533153.

This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - lpd.court.gov.ua/login.