Inheritance law practical
Replenishment date: 24.03.2013
Content: 30324100341850.rar (24.03 KB)
️Automatic issue of goods ✔️
️Automatic issue of goods ✔️
Sales:
5
Refunds:
0
Reviews:
0
Views:
331
Description
Practical work on the discipline "Inheritance law".
Task 1
S.A. Vinogradov bequeathed all his property to the mining institute, where he headed the department. This will was contested by both of his sons. The elder referred to the fact that, being a miner, he retired at the age of 55 and therefore on the day of the opening of the inheritance (by that time he was 58 years old) was already disabled for three years and asked to recognize his right to a mandatory share. The younger son of Vinogradov made a similar demand, since, although he continued to work, he was a disabled person of group II. The representative of the mining institute admitted in court the claim of the eldest of the brothers and asked to deny it to the second plaintiff, referring to the fact that with an earnings of 8 rubles. plus a disability pension, he cannot be recognized as entitled to a compulsory share in the inheritance.
What decision of the dispute court will comply with the requirements of the law?
Task 2
A. Steklov died in 2004. Their claims to his inheritance were announced by: son - M. Steklov, grandson - A. Steklov (son of M. Steklov); grandchildren B. Zolotev and S. Zolotev (children of the daughter of A. Steklov who died earlier) and K. Sazonov (blood father of A. Steklov). All the heirs objected to the recognition of the rights of K. Sazonov, since A. Steklov, with the consent of K. Sazonov, was adopted many years ago by the second husband of his mother S. V. Steklov. Sazonov objected to this, saying that, although in fact this was so, but after his retirement by age, they lived with Steklov alone, ran a joint household and Steklov recognized him as his father. The main dispute of all the heirs arose over the division of the deposit in the savings bank in the amount of $ 10, where Steklov's pension was transferred monthly.
Question: which of the heirs and what part of the contribution should inherit?
Task 3
As a result of careless handling of the fire, the house of the Sivkin family burned down. During the fire, the head of the family died, the owner of the house - Peter, the rest of the family were taken to the hospital with burns. A week later, Peter's wife, Tamara, died. In the evening of the same day, their common son Mikhail died. And a day later, Mikhail's wife Elena died. The dispute arose over the following property: home insurance (the insurance contract was concluded by Peter); amounts payable under the mixed life insurance contract concluded by Tamara (the recipient indicated Mikhail in the contract) and the car purchased by Peter and Tamara during the marriage. This property was claimed by: Alexey - Peter's son from his first marriage; Irina is Tamara's daughter from her first marriage, Marina is the daughter of Elena and Mikhail and Elena's parents.
Which of the named heirs and to which property is entitled?
Task 4
S. Parshin lived in a remote farm. He was unsociable and did not maintain relations with any of his relatives. For several years no one knew anything about him. He sent his last letter to his son in 2001. In October 2003, A. Parshin arrived at his father's farm and found that no one had lived here for a long time. At the same time, it was obvious that his father did not go anywhere, at home there was a passport, and all other documents, and money. There were also no traces of "fees" for the trip. They began to look for S. Parshin. To no avail. Residents of the surrounding farms have not seen him for more than 2 years and have not heard anything about him. After some time, in compliance with all the requirements of the law, A. Parshin and his sister V. Vikulova went to court with a statement declaring their father dead. This decision was made on January 11, 2004 and entered into force on January 21 of the same year. However, on January 15, A. Parshin died. Between V. Vikulova and the widow of A. Parshin, a dispute arose about which of them and to what part of S. Parshin's inheritance was entitled.
How should this dispute be resolved?
Task 5
After the death of the mother of Svetlana and Olga Lobachev, it turned out that there were two wills. One in favor of Svetlana, where it was indicated that all the property belonging to her mother was bequeathed to her, and the second, drawn up on the same day, to whom the contribution to the savings bank was bequeathed to Olga. A month after opening the inheritance, Olga withdrew money from her mother's account and
Task 1
S.A. Vinogradov bequeathed all his property to the mining institute, where he headed the department. This will was contested by both of his sons. The elder referred to the fact that, being a miner, he retired at the age of 55 and therefore on the day of the opening of the inheritance (by that time he was 58 years old) was already disabled for three years and asked to recognize his right to a mandatory share. The younger son of Vinogradov made a similar demand, since, although he continued to work, he was a disabled person of group II. The representative of the mining institute admitted in court the claim of the eldest of the brothers and asked to deny it to the second plaintiff, referring to the fact that with an earnings of 8 rubles. plus a disability pension, he cannot be recognized as entitled to a compulsory share in the inheritance.
What decision of the dispute court will comply with the requirements of the law?
Task 2
A. Steklov died in 2004. Their claims to his inheritance were announced by: son - M. Steklov, grandson - A. Steklov (son of M. Steklov); grandchildren B. Zolotev and S. Zolotev (children of the daughter of A. Steklov who died earlier) and K. Sazonov (blood father of A. Steklov). All the heirs objected to the recognition of the rights of K. Sazonov, since A. Steklov, with the consent of K. Sazonov, was adopted many years ago by the second husband of his mother S. V. Steklov. Sazonov objected to this, saying that, although in fact this was so, but after his retirement by age, they lived with Steklov alone, ran a joint household and Steklov recognized him as his father. The main dispute of all the heirs arose over the division of the deposit in the savings bank in the amount of $ 10, where Steklov's pension was transferred monthly.
Question: which of the heirs and what part of the contribution should inherit?
Task 3
As a result of careless handling of the fire, the house of the Sivkin family burned down. During the fire, the head of the family died, the owner of the house - Peter, the rest of the family were taken to the hospital with burns. A week later, Peter's wife, Tamara, died. In the evening of the same day, their common son Mikhail died. And a day later, Mikhail's wife Elena died. The dispute arose over the following property: home insurance (the insurance contract was concluded by Peter); amounts payable under the mixed life insurance contract concluded by Tamara (the recipient indicated Mikhail in the contract) and the car purchased by Peter and Tamara during the marriage. This property was claimed by: Alexey - Peter's son from his first marriage; Irina is Tamara's daughter from her first marriage, Marina is the daughter of Elena and Mikhail and Elena's parents.
Which of the named heirs and to which property is entitled?
Task 4
S. Parshin lived in a remote farm. He was unsociable and did not maintain relations with any of his relatives. For several years no one knew anything about him. He sent his last letter to his son in 2001. In October 2003, A. Parshin arrived at his father's farm and found that no one had lived here for a long time. At the same time, it was obvious that his father did not go anywhere, at home there was a passport, and all other documents, and money. There were also no traces of "fees" for the trip. They began to look for S. Parshin. To no avail. Residents of the surrounding farms have not seen him for more than 2 years and have not heard anything about him. After some time, in compliance with all the requirements of the law, A. Parshin and his sister V. Vikulova went to court with a statement declaring their father dead. This decision was made on January 11, 2004 and entered into force on January 21 of the same year. However, on January 15, A. Parshin died. Between V. Vikulova and the widow of A. Parshin, a dispute arose about which of them and to what part of S. Parshin's inheritance was entitled.
How should this dispute be resolved?
Task 5
After the death of the mother of Svetlana and Olga Lobachev, it turned out that there were two wills. One in favor of Svetlana, where it was indicated that all the property belonging to her mother was bequeathed to her, and the second, drawn up on the same day, to whom the contribution to the savings bank was bequeathed to Olga. A month after opening the inheritance, Olga withdrew money from her mother's account and