Case Summary

Su was a senior executive at a large enterprise before his death, with a substantial income. Later, Su and the defendant Chen, the respondent in this case, were registered as married in Hong Kong. After marriage, Chen's gambling addiction became apparent, and Su repeatedly paid off Chen's high gambling debts out of their marital feelings. However, what Su could not bear was that Chen had been having an affair outside of marriage for a long time, and this was discovered multiple times by Su, but Chen did not repent. After encountering Chen's affair multiple times and seeing no remorse from Chen, Su could no longer bear the emotional torment and committed suicide in her fully paid-for Hong Kong residence in the third year of marriage.

Chen confessed to his sorrow in front of Su's tomb and promised in the presence of many relatives and friends to abandon all rights and that all properties and other assets belonged to Su. Su's parents knew his character and therefore demanded that he write a testament and requested the signatures of witnesses. However, after writing the promise, Chen never cooperated in handling the property transfer registration procedures. On this basis, Chen refused to communicate with Su's parents and cooperate, and sued the court to request a judgment that the property rights of the housing under Su's name belong to the plaintiff.

Trial Process

Firstly, the court verified the identities of the parties, with the plaintiff Su XX and Liang being the father and mother of the deceased Su, and the defendant Chen being the husband of the deceased Su.

Secondly, the court heard the facts of Su's marriage with Chen and recognized the inheritance qualifications of Su's father and mother. The deceased Su and the defendant Chen were registered as married in Hong Kong in XX month XX, XXXX, and had no children after marriage. The deceased Su committed suicide in her apartment in Hong Kong on XX month XX, XXXX. The plaintiff Su XX, Liang, and the defendant Chen are all legal heirs of Su.

However, in view of the fact that the defendant Chen has issued a written promise to the two plaintiffs, stating: "I, Chen, with ID number XX, agree to transfer the movable property, one vehicle, and immovable property (a property located in Shenzhen) left behind by my wife Su and all cash and savings to Su XX (ID number XX) and Liang (ID number XX) under their names, and to abandon all claims, and this promise is signed and confirmed by a third party, Li M", the court hereby determines that the defendant Chen has voluntarily abandoned his inheritance rights.

Ultimately, the court ordered that the property rights of the housing under Su's name belong to Su's parents, and the defendant should cooperate within a specified time to transfer the property.

Dowah Lawyer Analysis

1. According to the "Inheritance Law of the People's Republic of China": The inheritance shall be inherited in the following order: the first order is the spouse, children, and parents. After the inheritance begins, it shall be handled in accordance with the statutory inheritance; if there is a will, it shall be inherited or bequeathed in accordance with the will or bequest; if there is a will and testament agreement, it shall be handled in accordance with the agreement.

2. According to the "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the "Inheritance Law of the People's Republic of China" and Other Relevant Laws": The heir who gives up inheritance shall express it in writing to the other heirs.

In summary, the plaintiff Su XX, the plaintiff Liang, and the defendant Chen are all legal heirs of the deceased Su Guomin. However, after the inheritance begins, the defendant Chen has expressed in writing to the other two heirs that he gives up his inheritance rights, which is legally valid. Firstly, the time of his giving up is after the beginning of inheritance and before the distribution of inheritance; secondly, he explicitly states in writing that he has given up the inheritance of all the aforementioned property, and there is a third-party witness, making the abandonment genuine and effective. Therefore, Su's property should be inherited by her parents, i.e., the two plaintiffs in this case.