On May 21, according to information from the Supreme People’s Court’s official WeChat account, the Civil Code is known as the “encyclopedia of social life.” On the occasion of the sixth “Civil Code Publicity Month” since its implementation, the Supreme People’s Court has published typical cases concerning the estate administrator system under the Civil Code.
The inheritance chapter of the Civil Code, based on the original Inheritance Law, introduces three major institutional improvements to the procedures and rules for estate handling: First, it adds an estate administrator system, systematically defining the method of appointment, statutory duties, rights and obligations, and civil liability of estate administrators, filling gaps in estate management rules to ensure proper management, smooth division, and fair settlement of estates. Second, it improves the legacy-support agreement system by appropriately expanding the scope of supporters to meet the diverse eldercare needs of the people. Third, it enhances the system for uninherited estates, clarifying that estates without heirs or legatees belong to the state and are used for public welfare. These three systems are reflected in the current batch of cases.
The estate administrator system, as an important institutional innovation of the Civil Code, serves as a key rule for balancing estate security management, protection of inheritance rights, and lawful realization of creditor claims. It plays a significant role in resolving disputes, reducing conflicts, preventing risks of estate loss, concealment, or misappropriation, and maintaining family harmony and social stability. The five typical cases released focus on key, difficult, and problematic issues in the judicial practice of the estate administrator system, while also safeguarding the legitimate rights of heirs, legatees, and creditors, and addressing the challenge of debt settlement after the deceased’s death. This batch of cases covers issues such as the determination process for estate administrators, the legal consequences of falsely renouncing inheritance, the recognition of persons entitled to appropriate portions of the estate, exploration of estate management methods, and the settlement of estate management expenses, with the following characteristics:
First, it maximizes respect for the deceased’s wishes during their lifetime. After inheritance begins, the executor of the will serves as the estate administrator. If the deceased specified an executor in a will made before death, that executor can legally serve as the estate administrator. In Case One, the deceased Huang Mou Song, before death, signed a legacy-support agreement with his niece Huang Mou Juan, who was not an heir, and later made a will stating that all his estate would be inherited by Huang Mou Juan and handled by her. Huang Mou Juan provided long-term care for Huang Mou Song’s daily life and managed his funeral arrangements. As both a legatee and executor of the will, Huang Mou Juan had fulfilled her support obligations and met the conditions to serve as the estate administrator. The court ruled to appoint Huang Mou Juan as the estate administrator, achieving an organic unity of the “three effects” in case handling while maximizing respect for the deceased’s true intentions.
Second, it resolutely curbs the behavior of “falsely renouncing inheritance to evade debts.” Heirs cannot renounce inheritance while simultaneously possessing and disposing of the estate, using the estate administrator system to evade legally required debt repayment responsibilities. In Case Two, although the parents and daughter of the deceased Yang Mou Jun renounced inheritance in writing, they actually received and disposed of Yang Mou Jun’s estate. In a loan dispute case filed by Yang Mou Jun’s creditor, they promised to repay debts within the scope of the inherited estate and actually repaid part of the amount. Since the heirs actually possessed and disposed of the estate, their actions negated the expression of renouncing inheritance, and the situation did not qualify as “no heirs or all heirs renounce inheritance,” failing to meet the legal conditions for appointing the civil affairs department as the estate administrator. The court dismissed the creditor’s application to appoint an estate administrator, upholding the principle of good faith while legally guiding and protecting the creditor’s rights.
Third, those who voluntarily provide significant support can receive an appropriate portion of the estate. Persons other than heirs who have provided substantial support to the deceased can legally receive an appropriate share of the estate. In Case Three, Ge Jia Cheng and Li Mou Pin, as the cousin and sister-in-law of the deceased Ge Yi Cheng, were not within the scope of legal heirs. However, after Ge Yi Cheng’s wife passed away, they frequently visited Ge Yi Cheng, who lived alone, cared for him during his epileptic seizures, took him to medical treatment, and handled his funeral and tomb-sweeping after his death. They had no legal obligation to support Ge Yi Cheng but provided voluntary assistance and care out of family bonds and moral duty. The court ruled that they should receive an appropriate portion of the estate, reflecting the principle of aligning rights with obligations and highlighting the inheritance of traditional virtues, promoting the socialist core values of harmony, justice, rule of law, and friendship.
Fourth, the estate share of a missing heir can
