What did Vu Linh's sister contribute to get 15% of her brother's assets?

On January 7, the Ho Chi Minh City People's Court issued a first-instance verdict on the inheritance dispute; requesting the cancellation of a separate decision and demanding a house for temporary residence between the biological sister and adopted daughter of Mr. Vo Van Ngoan (late Meritorious Artist Vu Linh).

The panel of judges declared that the late artist's adopted daughter was his only first-line heir. At the same time, the panel of judges also considered the contributions and current circumstances of the late artist's biological sister to declare that she would receive 15% of the value of the inheritance for taking care of her elderly mother and raising the late artist's adopted children so that he could reach the peak of his career and wealth...

This is a complicated and controversial inheritance dispute case. The court's verdict has therefore received much public attention. Many questions have been raised about the legal provisions surrounding the panel's decision that the late artist's biological sister is entitled to 15% of the value of the inheritance.

According to MSc. Nguyen Duc Hieu (International University, VNU-HCM), before 2016, disputes over inheritance division, managers and contributors to heritage restoration were not considered and resolved by the court. Meanwhile, many people have spent a lot of effort and mone.y to maintain and increase the value of heritage for many years.

Then, Precedent No. 05/2016/AL was approved by the Supreme People's Court's Council of Judges and promulgated on April 6, 2016.

According to the precedent, although Ms. Phuong (the granddaughter of the two people who left the property) is not in the first line of inheritance, she has made a lot of effort in managing and spending mone.y to repair the house. During the court's handling of the case, Ms. Phuong did not request consideration of her efforts because she believed that the case had expired and she did not agree to return the house and land to the heirs. Thus, Ms. Phuong's request to determine the rights is greater than the request to consider the efforts, but the court of first instance and the appellate court did not consider Ms. Phuong's efforts, which is not a thorough resolution of the litigant's request.

In terms of meaning, Precedent No. 05/2016 guides courts when resolving similar cases to consider the fairness between the interests of co-heirs and those who have contributed to the inheritance.

"The case of dividing the inheritance of the late Meritorious Artist Vu Linh is a special case. The Civil Code and guiding documents have not clearly stated this issue. In addition, the precedent also does not directly address the issue of who contributed to supporting other tasks for the person leaving the inheritance (the precedent only addresses the issue related to the direct contribution to the property, which is the house)" - Master Nguyen Duc Hieu said.

According to lawyer Le Trung Phat (Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association), Article 616 of the Civil Code stipulates that the estate administrator can be the person designated in the will or agreed upon by the heirs. According to Article 618 of the Civil Code, the estate administrator is entitled to remuneration as agreed upon with the heirs, and is paid for the costs of preserving the estate...

In the inheritance dispute case of the late Meritorious Artist Vu Linh, if the estate administrator cannot be identified, the determination of the estate administrator to apply their rights will be based on who is directly managing. Precedent No. 05/2016 also regulates this and it is necessary to consider the contributions and management of the estate of the person identified as having contributed and managed the estate.

Is it necessary to prove contribution?

According to Lawyer Phat, there is currently no specific document guiding how much mone.y is paid to the estate manager and based on what value, so it will depend on the assessment of the jury. If the contribution by way of maintenance and upkeep of the property has invoices and documents, it will be considered as actual expenditure and will be recognized. As for the management and care efforts... it is quite vague if only determined based on statements.

Meanwhile, according to Dr. Nguyen Thi Kim Vinh, former judge of the Supreme People's Court, the Civil Code does not stipulate that the inheritance must be divided among those who have contributed to the restoration, but only stipulates the person who manages the inheritance. Although the law does not stipulate how much and in what proportion, according to Clause 2, Article 6 of the Civil Code, the court has the right to consider the case based on fairness. In fact, it is necessary to consider documents and evidence to assess the late artist's biological sister's contributions and contribution ratio. In addition, the court also needs to consider the actual situation and developments of the incident to consider and ensure the rights and obligations of the late artist's sister.

Em Vũ Linh ra đòn hiểm với cháu gái Hồng Loan, có 15% căn nhà? Keng21:37:44 09/01/2025Ngày 7/1, TAND TP HCM mở phiên tòa xét xử sơ thẩm vụ tranh chấp di sản thừa kế, đòi nhà cho ở nhờ giữa nguyên đơn Võ Thị Hồng Nhung, 61 tuổi, với bị đơn là Võ Thị Hồng Loan, 38 tuổi (con của cố nghệ sĩ Vũ Linh).