The Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands, a fifth section, has partially revoked an instance sentence by estimating the appeal filed by Two disinherited children for his mother in will. The court has concluded that A sufficient legal cause had not been accredited To justify disinheritance for psychological abuse, as had been collected in the will granted in November 2021 by the deceased, died in 2022.
The woman in The will disinherited two of his children for psychological abuse, claiming a Continuous behavior of contempt and family abandonment. In the same document, he also excluded from the inheritance to another of his children, already deceased, under the argument that in life he had received sufficient assets to cover their legitimary rights. Consequently, he instituted his other six children as heirs.
The demand was filed by the disinherited children and their grandchildren. The former requested that the disinheriting clause be declared void, while the latter requested recognition of their right to legitimate as descendants of a heir apparent. They all claimed that the causes invoked in the will did not correspond to reality, that there was no psychological abuse or abandonment and that, in the case of the deceased son, there had been no sufficient donation in life to deprive him of his hereditary rights.
In the first instance, the Court of First Instance and Instruction No. 1 of Ciutadella de Menorca partially dismissed the claim. Considered justified disinheritance by estimating prolonged emotional abandonment by the two childreninterpreted as psychological abuse. However, he recognized the right of the grandchildren to perceive the legitimate one, since his father had not proven in life the corresponding value.
Faced with that sentence, the two affected filed an appeal before the Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands. In the resource they argued that the break in the relationship with their mother was a consequence of the Conflict emerged among the brothers after the partition of the father’s inheritancedeceased in 2017, and that cannot be attributed exclusively to them.
They contributed as proof Family, testimony photographs, message exchanges for WhatsApp and testamentary history that, in his opinion, they demonstrated that there was a deal with the mother and that the disinheritance was not justified. They also alleged that the testator had adopted a position in favor of the brothers during the conflict, which would explain the distancing, without necessarily implying abuse.
After the presentation of these evidence, this court has declared the nullity of the first and second clauses of the contested will and recognized the right of the plaintiffsas well as that of the testator’s grandchildren to perceive the legitimate one that corresponds to them.
The Chamber has considered that, although there was a break in the relationship between the mother and the disinherited children, that lack of bond could not be imputed exclusively to these. According to the Court, the distancing was a consequence of a family conflict triggered by the partition of the inheritance of the deceased father in 2017, and not an active behavior of abandonment or contempt for the mother.
In the opinion of the magistrates, psychological abuse must be understood as a harmful behavior for the mental health of the testatorattributable to who is disinherited, and in this case such a degree of affectation was not achieved. Nor was it proven that the children had interrupted the relationship unilaterally and without cause, but that the conflict was collective, with the involvement of several brothers and the testator herself.
In addition to revoking the testamentary clauses that contained the disinheritage and exclusion of another forced heir for alleged early perception of the legitimate one, the audience has ordered the Reduction of the heir institution in everything that harms the legitimary rights of the plaintiffs.
