Many elderly people living alone in Shenzhen have entered into agreements for support and care with their children, stipulating that the children are responsible for the full-time care, upbringing, and burial, with the property and savings of the elderly person belonging to the children after their death. Some elderly people change their ideas in their later years and separately make wills to redistribute their property, which is likely to trigger inheritance disputes among siblings. In light of the local Shenzhen criteria for family and domestic cases: the elderly have the right to make another will, but the agreement for support and care, which is exchanged for the inheritance, has a higher level of effectiveness than the will. When there is a conflict between the two, the part of the will in conflict is directly invalid, and the property that does not overlap can be disposed of according to the will.

  Firstly, clarify the legal nature. Children are legal heirs. The agreement on the division of property for elderly care between parents and children does not fall under the provisions of Article 1158 of the Civil Code (such agreements only apply to individuals and organizations other than legal heirs), and judicial practice uniformly identifies it as a property agreement with the obligation of supporting the elderly, but the priority of effectiveness is applied according to the rules of the agreement on inheritance and support. Agreements of the inheritance and support type are bilateral paid contracts, where children need to provide long-term actual obligations such as care, medical treatment, and funeral arrangements, with equal rights and obligations; a will is the unilateral and gratuitous disposition of property by the elderly, which does not require the consent of the children. The law establishes the priority rule of the agreement based on fairness, even if the later will has been notarized and is dated later, making opposite arrangements for the same property, all corresponding clauses of the will shall be invalidated. The third interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the inheritance chapter clearly stipulates that if the agreement and the will are not contradictory, they shall be executed separately; if there is a contradiction, the agreement shall prevail.

  This article analyzes two common situations in Shenzhen courts. First, the agreement only stipulates that the Shenzhen property belongs to the child in charge of the care, without mentioning other assets such as savings, investments, and jewelry. If the elderly person establishes a will later on, dividing the savings among other children, the scope of the two documents does not overlap, the will is completely legal and valid, and the savings can be inherited by the designated children. Second, the agreement lists all the property under the name of the child in charge of the support. If the elderly person establishes a will later on, dividing the property within the agreement among multiple children, the content of the will concerning the property is invalid, and the property is still acquired by the child who fulfills the agreement. The remaining property not listed in the agreement can still be freely arranged by the elderly person through the will.

  There is only one exception in practice that can override the priority effect of the agreement: failure to fulfill the obligations of raising, educating, and burying the child; long-term neglect of care; and refusal to bear medical expenses. The elderly can sue to terminate the support agreement while they are alive; if the elderly person passes away without terminating it, other heirs can submit medical records, community proof, and neighbor testimony to prove that the children have not fulfilled their filial responsibilities. The court may determine that the agreement is invalid, and the entire inheritance will be distributed according to the last valid will. Shenzhen courts evaluate the performance of the agreement based on years of continuous care records, and short-term interruptions in care are not sufficient to determine full responsibility.

 Many Shenzhen elderly have a cognitive misconception, believing that a will made after the establishment of a guardianship agreement has stronger efficacy and can directly override the previous guardianship agreement. This understanding is contrary to the judicial rules. There are two compliant solutions to properly balance the rights and interests of relatives: First, the will only disposes of property not covered by the agreement, avoiding the property stipulated in the agreement; Second, reach a consensus with the guardianship children first, in writing terminate the existing guardianship agreement, and then make a new will to redistribute all the heritage, avoiding the children going to court.

  The retention of evidence is crucial. After signing two documents, the elderly and their family members should keep a complete record of daily care, medical payment invoices, and communication chat records to substantiate the long-term fulfillment of the foster children's obligations; if other children claim to redistribute the property, the key is to collect evidence of the other party's failure in supporting the elderly. The support agreement binds many years of elderly care, and the law prioritizes the rights and interests of the actual caregivers. Although the elderly have the freedom to make a will, they cannot rely solely on a unilateral will to overturn an already effective support agreement. It is necessary to clarify the priority of the two in terms of effectiveness to anticipate and avoid disputes over the inheritance of Shenzhen property and savings.