Визначення судом додаткового строку для прийняття спадщини в умовах воєнного стану

Abstract

Стаття присвячена виявленню особливостей розгляду цивільних справ про визначення додаткового строку для прийняття спадщини в умовах воєнного стану. Проаналізовано найбільш поширені обставини, якими спадкоємці пояснюють неприйняття спадщини в умовах воєнного стану: перебування на час відкриття спадщини за межами України; проживання на час відкриття спадщини в місцевості, що перебувала під окупацією або в зоні активних бойових дій; хвороба; необізнаність про наявність заповіту, складеного на користь позивача.

The article is focused on identifying the peculiarities of hearing civil cases on taking the ruling about supplementary period for accepting inheritance in terms of the martial law, taking into account the provisions of the current legislation of Ukraine, developments in legal doctrine and modern case-law. The author has substantiated the argumentativeness of the position expressed in legal literature regarding the expediency of hearing cases on taking the ruling about supplementary period for accepting inheritance in terms of a separate proceeding related to the absence of a dispute about the right. Despite the introduction of the martial law in Ukraine, supplementary period for accepting inheritance can be determined by the court only if there are valid reasons for its expiration. Optimal balance of the rights and interests of a plaintiff and other lawful heirs, who exercised their right to accept inheritance in a timely manner, is achieved in such a way. The most common circumstances that plaintiffs use to explain the reason for missing the deadline for accepting inheritance in terms of the martial law are: 1) a lawful heir’s stay outside of Ukraine at the moment of inheritance release, which is mostly not recognized by the court as a reason for satisfying the corresponding claim; 2) residence of a lawful heir in the area that was under occupation or in the zone of active hostilities at the moment of inheritance release, which is a valid reason in the context of Part 3 of the Art. 1272 of the Civil Code; 3) illness of a plaintiff, which is recognized as a valid reason, if the plaintiff underwent in-patient treatment in a health care facility for a long period of time within the terms established for accepting inheritance, provided that such illness made it impossible to timely apply to a notary public or an official of a local self-government agency on accepting inheritance; 4) a lawful heir’s ignorance of the last will and testament’s existence, which is classified as a valid reason for missing the deadline for accepting inheritance, if the last will and testament was drawn up in favor of a person, who is not a lawful heir under the law. The duration of missing the deadline for accepting inheritance is a valid reason for taking such a ruling.