The "appeal" confirmed that the procedures were carried out before his illness

Divorced woman doubts her divorced sale of his property .. He suffered "Alzheimer's" before death

The "appeal" upheld the judgment of the first instance court.

Archives

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal upheld the ruling issued by the Court of First Instance, the judge to reject a divorced lawsuit, in which it demanded the nullification of all acts of the divorced (the heir to her minors) in his property, whether the disposition was a sale or a gift to his heirs or to others, due to his illness and his suffering in the last years of his life Alzheimer's disease, and ruled The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The details of the case are due to a woman filing a lawsuit in which she demanded the nullification of all the acts of the deceased from her minors and the persons appealed against, regarding his property, whether the disposition was a sale or a gift to his heirs or to others, during the seven-year period preceding the date of his death, due to his illness and his suffering during "Alzheimer's". He called to quarantine him, based on what was proven in the report of the five-year medical committee that examined him under the pretext of quarantine, due to his diminished cognitive abilities and memory, and he cannot act on his own affairs, and his condition is not amenable to improvement or cure.

The case papers stated that the expert work of the appealed case, and the medical experience reports about the pathological condition of the gene, concluded that the gene returned to the hospital about three years before his death, because he had a cough and a sore throat and the doctor who examined him mentioned that he was cooperative, aware and attentive, and 10 months later he visited the hospital once Another was accompanied by the driver, as he was suffering from pain and swelling in his left arm and wrist, and the doctor who examined him stated that he was cooperative and in a moderate mood, and that he was aware of time, place and people, and returned to the hospital three days later, then 14 months before his death, and the onset of dementia appeared on him.

The court of first instance took into account what was mentioned by the deceased’s family that the patient had been suffering from dementia symptoms during the last three years of his life, and the reviews that were made to the internal medicine doctor were for non-psychological or mental organic reasons, and the doctors did not thoroughly examine his state of mind, and the most reasonable preference is that the beginning The disease was at the beginning of 2013, and the symptoms were mild and limited, so that the attending physician did not notice them.

The papers indicated that the condition of the deceased began to deteriorate sharply two years before his death, until he managed to become ill significantly in his last year, and there is no evidence that the patient was suffering from dementia three years before his death, while the inheritor's disposition came in all his possessions shown in papers The association, experience reports, and the municipality’s statement more than three years before his death, and his disposal of any of his properties after suffering from Alzheimer's disease or after quarantining him was not proven, nor was it proven that any of his actions occurred as a result of exploitation or collusion, and the court of first instance ruled rejecting the case.

The plaintiff did not accept the ruling of the court of first instance and appealed it to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal stated in its ruling that the Court of First Instance concluded its appealed judiciary based on the results of experience and the medical report it contained that was consistent and corroborating the report of the Five-Year Committee, regarding the condition of the gene due to his Alzheimer's disease that lost him His eligibility and the mandate of the judiciary to quarantine him, in what was decided by him that the presentation of that disease was three years before the date of death, and since it was proven in the papers that all the actions are subject to collusion, whether it is dealt with by experience or what the appellant mentioned with her objections, it took place before that date and there was no evidence On the contrary, and since there is no need for him to return the papers at other times for experience, the court ruled to accept the appeal formally, reject it and confirm the appealed judgment, and obligate the appellant to pay the expenses.

The woman filed a lawsuit demanding the annulment of all acts of her divorced woman, whether by sale or gift.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news