Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Turun HO 13.11.1981 TU-791 AI generated

Inheritance right to statutory share preserved despite waiver in contract due to lack of fair compensation.

Case Number Turun HO 13.11.1981 TU-791
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court ruled that the heir retained the right to claim their statutory share of the estate despite having signed a contract waiving inheritance rights. The heir argued that they had not received fair compensation for this waiver, which is a prerequisite for such a waiver to be valid under Finnish law. The court determined that obtaining the statutory share does not depend on a timely notice or lawsuit, thereby upholding the heir's claim.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Perintökaari 17 luvun 1 §:n 2 momentti; The right to claim a statutory share of the estate is preserved even if the heir has waived inheritance rights in a contract, provided fair compensation was not received.

Keywords

AI generated
statutory share inheritance waiver of inheritance rights fair compensation requirement heir's legal protection contractual waiver validity

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Perintökaari 17 luvun 1 §:n 2 momentti
AI generated
kko-precedent_1995_34
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; missing witness signature on inheritance deed does not invalidate the deed.
kko-precedent_1988_102
Supreme Court allows siblings to challenge a will when a renouncing heir lacks standing due to prior valid renunciation.
kko-precedent_1990_85
Supreme Court allows 1963 deed as valid deathbed gift despite later inheritance law changes.
kko-precedent_1997_49
Supreme Court dismisses state liability claim where probate court's oversight failure did not cause death notice delay.
appeal_1980_eastern-finland__428
Appeal dismissed due to missing signature but allowed because firm stamp proved no lack of knowledge.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Perillinen oli allekirjoittamassaan kauppakirjassa ilmoittanut perittävälle luopuvansa perinnöstä. Perillisellä oli kuitenkin perintökaaren 17 luvun 1 §:n 2 momentin nojalla oikeus lakiosaan, josta hän ei ollut saanut kohtuullista vastiketta. Lakiosan

saaminen ei tällaisessa tapauksessa riippunut määräajassa tehdystä ilmoituksesta tai vireille pannusta kanteesta.

Läsnä: Kulmala - Tulenheimo - Hukkanen (apuj.) Esittelijä: Suomi

KKO:n ratkaisu:

Päätös n:o 1507/26.3.1982: ei valituslupaa