Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSC sklep Cp 730/2008 ECLI:SI:VSCE:2009:CP.730.2008 AI generated

Inheritance agreement invalid without all heirs; court rejects inclusion of non-estate property.

Case Number VSC sklep Cp 730/2008
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the appeal against a first-instance judgment that declared specific individuals heirs to a deceased's estate. The appellant argued the disputed house should be included in the inheritance, but records showed it belonged to another heir, M. P. The court ruled that an inheritance agreement under Article 214/III of the Inheritance Act requires all potential heirs to participate and can only cover estate assets, not property owned by individual heirs.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 162 of the Inheritance Act; Article 214/III of the Inheritance Act: An inheritance agreement may be concluded only by all heirs capable of inheriting and may include only assets forming the estate, excluding property owned by individual heirs.

Keywords

AI generated
inheritance agreement estate division heir capacity property ownership statutory requirements

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 162 of the Inheritance Act
Article 214/III of the Inheritance Act
AI generated
VSRS sodba II Ips 134/2016
Appeal dismissed; contract cannot override good faith builder rules unless it regulates construction rights.
Sodba II Ips 266/2012
Court rejects appeal claiming co-ownership shares cannot change without agreement, upholding finding of exclusive ownership based on contributions.
VSM Sodba I Cp 135/2022
Appeal dismissed; court upheld that marital property rules apply to the disputed real estate purchase.
VSM sodba I Cp 415/2014
Appeal dismissed; joint property law applies based on shared nationality or last common residence.
VSK sklep Cp 1233/99
Court dismisses debtor's appeal, ruling poor health and desire to die at home do not block auction sale under ZIZ. The court confirms the debtor retains a three-year lease right post-sale. The court held that personal health conditions cannot override statutory auction procedures. The debtor's only remedy is the statutory three-year lease right. The court rejected arguments that health issues prevent property transfer. The decision upholds the auction sale despite the debtor's health concerns. The court emphasized strict adherence to the ZIZ provisions. The debtor's appeal was found to be legally unfounded. The court confirmed the first-instance judgment regarding the sale.

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

Pritožba se zavrne in se potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Sporazum o delitvi zapuščine lahko veljavno sklenejo le vsi dediči, ki lahko zajamejo tudi premoženje, ki ne spada v zapuščino.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče razglasilo za dediče zapustnikove brate in sestre in sicer M. P., D. P., M. P., A. J., C. K. in F. P. vsakega do 1/6. Sodišče pa ni odločalo ¾ stanovanjske hiše parc. št. ... pri vl. št. ... k.o. B., ker hiša ni bila last zapustnika.

Proti takšnemu sklepu se pritožuje dedinja M. P. in smiselno izpodbija obseg zapuščine. V spisu je izjava M. P. z dne 9. 3. 2008, da sporna hiša spada v zapuščino in da jo naj ½ deduje M. P. Sodišče bi moralo izvesti dedovanje tudi glede hiše.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Po čl. 162 Zakona o dedovanju zapuščinsko sodišče odloča o zapuščini, to je o premoženju zapustnika.

Po podatkih zemljiške knjige zapustnik ni bil lastnik ¾ stanovanjske hiše, par. št. ... vl. št. ... k.o. B., saj je v zemljiški knjigi vknjižen kot lastnik M. P.

Sodišče zato sporno nepremičnino ni moglo obravnavati kot del zapuščine. Po čl. 214/III ZD lahko vsi dediči pred sodiščem sklenejo sporazum o delitvi zapuščine (dedni dogovor). V omenjeni sporazum lahko vsi sodediči vključijo tudi premoženje, ki je njegova last in ne spada v zapuščino.

V konkretnem primeru sta sporazum o delitvi predlagala le dva dediča na list. št. ..., ne pa tudi ostali štirje dediči.

Toda tudi predlagan sporazum se ne nanaša na delitev zapuščine, ampak le na premoženje, ki pripada enemu dediču, to je M. P. Če bi v konkretnem primeru vseh šest dedičev predlagalo sporazum o delitvi zapuščine, bi lahko bila v ta sporazum vključena tudi sporna hiša, last M. P.

Iz spisa je torej razvidno, da niso obstajali pogoji za sklenitev sporazuma iz čl. 214/III Zakona o dedovanju.

Lastnik M. P. lahko torej glede lastnega deleža na hiši sklene poljuben pravni posel.