The nearly 80-year-old siblings filed a lawsuit when their sister bequeathed her late husband’s only breastfeeding daughter, the man’s daughter, to 226,000 euros.
The amount of money was the same that the sister had received from her husband's estate as a draw.
The siblings demanded their money for themselves because they were shareholders in the estate.
The estate had a total of more than 430,000 euros in assets.
Of this amount, deposits accounted for approximately EUR 300,000 and the rest were investments and securities.
The husband died almost 30 years ago and the wife in 2016. The dispute over the interpretation of the will ended in the loss of the siblings in both the Helsinki District Court and the Court of Appeal.
The siblings demanded the daughter return the money because they thought the estate distributor had come to the wrong conclusion.
They considered that the daughter was not a shareholder in the nest and did not have a position in the nest.
The daughter is about 60 years old.
The right was exercised from a estate with a total assets of more than 430,000 euros.
Illustration: Photo: Heikki Saukkomaa / Lehtikuva
The view of the siblings was that the last will of the deceased sister was that all property be transferred to them because they are the only legal heirs of the two.
The solicitor in charge of the liquidation also received a claim from the plaintiffs that he should, in the alternative, reimburse the full amount of money because he had caused them great harm by his interpretation of the will.
The daughter opposed the lawsuit and demanded that it be dismissed.
According to him, the testator had correctly interpreted the will, which was the last will of the deceased.
The deceased's wealth is based on a mutual will made by the spouses almost 35 years ago.
According to it, the wife acquires a lifelong tenure of the valuable property, which would later be transferred to the husband’s daughter.
The wife ordered her own property to be distributed to her legal heirs, or siblings, but the property she receives from her husband goes to the man’s only child.
Since the couple did not have children in common, the district court held it consistent that the man's property should be returned to his family.
The Helsinki District Court dismissed the lawsuit filed by the siblings almost two years ago. Photo: Mikko Stig / Lehtikuva
The district court held that the property received by the wife from her husband, € 226,000, goes to the daughter and the court approved the liquidator's interpretation.
The lawsuit filed by the siblings was dismissed by the district court nearly two years ago.
They received leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and continued to claim their money for themselves, plus interest at 5 percent.
In their view, the sister had acquired her property on the basis of her marital right in a division and the sister did not prescribe in her will that the property which she would receive after her husband's death be returned to the family.
The daughter continued to contend that the action should be dismissed.
It was also claimed by the estate lawyer, who found that the will of the will applied to all property that the wife had acquired after her husband's death, regardless of the method of collection.
Under matrimonial law, about a quarter of the valuable property was transferred to the wife after the death of her spouse, which was subsequently sold and the wife received a share of 226,000 euros.
The sale price was approximately EUR 900,000.
Based on the will, the liquidator settled the money as a special act, ie as a legate, for the daughter.
The Helsinki Court of Appeal settled a long-running testamentary dispute last week.
It is possible to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court if it grants leave to appeal. Photo: Antti Hämäläinen / IS
The Court of Appeal found that the wife had acquired property under matrimonial law, which was transferred to his name on a plain basis on the basis of a division between the spouses.
According to the Court of Appeal, the liquidator did not cause damage to the estate, nor did he exceed his authority in settling the money with the daughter.
The unanimous appellate court did not change the district court's decision.
The shareholders of the estate who brought an action against the interpretation of the will have to pay all the costs of the dispute, which amount to approximately EUR 25,000.
The Court of Appeal settled the will last week.
It is possible to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court if it grants leave to appeal.