When you want to disinherit your children by moving abroad, it is better not to do it at the last moment. Certainly, the courts competent to rule on the succession of a deceased are those of the State in which he had “his habitual residence at the time of his death “, said one European regulation of July 4, 2012. But to determine this habitual residence, it is necessary “carry out an overall assessment of the circumstances of [sa] life “.
It is by following this method that the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence (Bouches-du-Rhône) judged that a man, Yves “had not established his habitual residence in a stable and effective manner”but that he had only wanted “see Portuguese law applied to his estate”.
This court had been seized by the ex-wife of Mr. Worried about them not having any news from a notary in charge of the inheritance, while their only income is their allowances, and being surprised that her ex-husband died in Portugal, she contacted a lawyer ,Me Emmanuelle Labandibar-Lacan.
Acting on behalf of the two reserved heirs, she undertook a real investigation, with French and Portuguese hospitals, the tax authorities, and the banks, to find out what Mr. X’s last habitual residence had been.
Excessive premiums
She discovered that in 2014, aged 67, he had been diagnosed with cancer; that, believing himself to be doomed, he had sold a Parisian building (7 million euros) and placed the money in life insurance, the beneficiaries of which were around ten relatives, but not his daughters. She learned that under Portuguese law they could not have these life insurance premiums reinstated in the inheritance. “manifestly excessive”while French law provides for this hypothesis.
And that they could only receive two-ninths of this inheritance (instead of three-quarters in France), even though it is made up of numerous properties in France. The lawyer also discovered that Mr. X and his second wife had only established themselves in Portugal barely five months before Mr. eleven days before his death.
She sued the widow and the beneficiaries of the life insurance in France, maintaining that Mr. X had fraudulently transferred his domicile to Portugal, to disinherit his daughters. Mme X disputed this: she assured that her husband, recovered from his cancer, thought he would live there for many years, when he suffered a heart attack. The court of appeal did not follow it. The Court of Cassation confirmed, on July 12 (2023, 21-10.905, 21-11.041), that the French courts had jurisdiction. The examination of the merits of the case will now begin.