Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 18.05.1983 205 AI generated

Inheritance law: Supplementary claim for inheritance share admissible without prior estate division or executor appointment.

Case Number Helsingin HO 18.05.1983 205
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court allowed the supplementary claim filed by heir B against co-heir A. The plaintiff argued that no prior estate division or executor appointment was required to file this claim. The court ruled that such procedural steps are not prerequisites for initiating the action.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Lainvoimainen: The right to file a supplementary claim for inheritance share is not contingent upon a prior estate division or the appointment of an executor.

Keywords

AI generated
supplementary claim inheritance share estate division executor appointment heir rights co-heir dispute succession law
AI generated
kko-precedent_1987_29
Supreme Court allows late inheritance claim for gift treated as testamentary despite prior dismissal.
kko-precedent_1995_76
Supreme Court allows claim for compensation when a deceased's estate is undervalued in a sale to a child with a retained life tenancy.
kko-precedent_1998_137
Advance inheritance from surviving spouse to child must be deducted from first-deceased spouse's estate, not second spouse's share.
kko-precedent_1997_70
Supreme Court held that adding a beneficiary's gift to estate assets for calculation does not require a separate inheritance supplement claim.
kko-precedent_2011_75
Supreme Court dismisses claim for legacy money when universal legatee refuses inheritance division.

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

Perittävä oli yhdessä puolisonsa kanssa eläkekaupalla luovuttanut omistamansa tilan kolmesta rintaperillisestään A:lle.

Lakiosan määrän ja mahdollisen täydennysvelvollisuuden selvittäminen erillisessä pesänjaossa taikka pesänjakajan määrääminen eivät olleet edellytyksenä rintaperillisen B:n A:ta vastaan nostaman lakiosan täydennyskanteen tutkimiselle.

Läsnä: Hiltunen, Winqvist ja Niemelä (apuj.)

Esittelijä: Söderholm

Lainvoimainen