Lhen the notary in charge of an estate does not know whether the deceased had any family, he asks a genealogist to carry out research, on the basis of the latter’s birth certificate. This document does not mention his descendants, but it does mention his marriages and divorces; the genealogist then consults the ten-year tables of the municipalities where these events took place. He can find children fairly quickly, when they were born in the city where the deceased was married.
This is the case of Mauricette X., born in 1940, in Paris, from the union of Roger and Lucette, who married there shortly afterwards. Her father stopped seeing her when he divorced her in 1953. But she continued to live in the capital until her marriage. She then moved not far away, to Essonne, where she had two daughters. However, when Roger died, in Paris, in 2010, and the notary tried to find out if he had heirs, the Coutot-Roehrig company did not spot her.
Maria Y., caretaker and universal legatee of the deceased, is therefore, in 2011, authorized to take possession of all of the estate assets (156,000 euros). After paying 60% transfer tax (93,600 euros), she invests what remains in an apartment.
Alas, in 2016, Roger’s family comes forward: the two daughters of Mauricette, who has just died, and whose father wanted to know if the father was still alive, discover the pot of roses. They then have a period of two years before prescription, to claim half of the assets (78,000 euros) from Maria, which should have gone to their mother, the compulsory heiress. Maria asks that Coutot-Roehrig replace her, given her mistake. The company accepts, before retracting.
“moral damage”
In May 2018, the two girls assign Maria, which turns against society. The Paris court orders Maria to pay, but… it does not order that the genealogist guarantee her. He actually judges September 9, 2020, that there is no ” causality link “ enter here ” mistake ” that he committed and the fact that the representatives of the heiress claim their due, moreover, this does not constitute a ” harm “but an effect of inheritance rules.
Maria repays the 78,000 euros thanks to a loan and the transfer rights paid to her by the tax authorities (46,800 euros), but she appeals. The Paris Court of Appeal judges, once again, March 9, 2022that she has not suffered any prejudice ” material “. She admits however that the fault of the genealogist, “recognized professional”caused him a “moral damage”, since, “five years later” having perceived her bequest, she learned that she could only benefit from it for half, and that she “endured the horrors of a trial”.
Contrary to what Courtot-Roehrig maintained, the court considers that “the worries and worries that Mme Y. had to undergo not akin’ to those who“an investor” supports, because of “risks” of his operation: Mme Y., “Assured of the accuracy of the devolution established according to the work of the Courtot-Roehrig company, could not have been aware of such a risk”.
The court adds that these hassles “were all the more harshly felt as Mr.me Y., of modest means, was confronted with an unusual and complex legal situation”. She condemns Coutot-Roehrig to pay him 10,000 euros.