Inheritance disputes involve land use rights.

I. Details of the incident

On April 12, 2023, Mr. L and Ms. K filed a lawsuit against Ms. B, requesting the court to divide the common property left by their deceased parents, specifically plot number 1235, with an area of ​​833.6 m2, and land use rights certificate number BM372867, registered in Ms. B’s name. They request a division based on the value of the land reclaimed by the state and compensation of VND 7,000,000,000 (seven billion dong), with each person receiving ¼ (one-quarter) of the land value, equivalent to VND 1,750,000,000 (one billion seven hundred and fifty million dong).

At the first instance, the defendant authorized a representative to participate in the proceedings in their personal capacity. The defendant’s representative requested the court to reject the plaintiff’s claim, arguing that: the defendant acknowledged the land was inherited from their parents, but the defendant’s husband had declared ownership since 1996 without any objection from Mr. L and Ms. K. In 2013, Ms. B’s husband died, and Ms. B has held ownership ever since, without any objection from Mr. L and Ms. K; disputes would only arise when compensation was required. The plaintiff argued that while their parents were alive, they cultivated a lot of land, but now they have no place to offer incense and prayers because all the land has been confiscated, and therefore they need money to buy land for a burial plot to worship their parents.

What are the solutions for conflicts of interest?

According to the initial case acceptance notice, the case is a “land use rights dispute.” However, the defendant’s authorization states it is a “dispute over common property.” The authorization was made after the court had issued notices of mediation and notices of termination of mediation. Numerous documents show the defendant’s representative photocopying the case file in their capacity as a lawyer.

During the trial, the first-instance court applied the statute of limitations, stating that the time limit for dividing the inheritance of Mr. L and Ms. K’s father had expired, and therefore rejected Mr. L and Ms. K’s lawsuit.

Seeing their rights violated, Mr. L and Ms. K requested Inter Justice lawyers to represent them at the appellate court hearing.

II. Legal provisions related to the case

The 2015 Code of Civil Procedure stipulates:

• Article 86. Rights and obligations of the representative

2. An authorized representative in civil proceedings exercises the civil procedural rights and obligations of a party in accordance with the content of the authorization document.

• The court only applies the statute of limitations at the request of one or both parties, provided that this request is made before the first-instance court issues a judgment resolving the case. This is stipulated in Clause 2, Article 184 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code and Clause 2, Article 149 of the 2015 Civil Code.

III. Legal solutions offered by lawyers

We request that the appellate court overturn the first-instance judgment and return the case to the first-instance court for retrial, because:

• The defendant’s representative lacked the legal standing to participate in the case due to an invalid authorization. The case for which the defendant authorized the representative was fictitious, based on the legal relationship with the court that received the case, and the authorization was made after the court had already issued notices. Therefore, the representative’s procedural standing did not arise, according to Clause 2, Article 86 of the Civil Procedure Code. Furthermore, it was not clarified whether the defendant’s representative was an individual or a lawyer. Therefore, the first-instance court’s recognition of the defendant’s representative’s procedural standing to exercise the rights and obligations of a representative in the proceedings on behalf of the defendant constituted a serious violation of procedural rules.
• The court only applies the statute of limitations at the request of one or both parties, provided that this request is made before the first-instance court issues a judgment resolving the case. This is stipulated in Clause 2, Article 184 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code and Clause 2, Article 149 of the 2015 Civil Code.
• Based on all the documents, files, and evidence in the case, neither the plaintiff, the defendant, nor the related parties requested the application of the statute of limitations to the case. Therefore, regarding the request to divide the inheritance of Mr. L and Mrs. K, the first-instance court should not have applied the statute of limitations but should have resolved the case according to general procedures. However, the first-instance court arbitrarily applied the statute of limitations, claiming that the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit to divide the inheritance had expired, thereby rejecting the plaintiff’s claim and the independent claim of the related parties. This constitutes a serious violation of the procedural rules stipulated in Article 184 of the Civil Procedure Code, a violation of the fundamental principle of the parties’ right to decide and self-determination as stipulated in Article 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, and seriously affects the legitimate rights and interests of the parties.

IV. Court Judgment

• The appellate court accepted the plaintiff’s appeal and the lawyer’s arguments. It overturned the first-instance judgment and returned the case to the first-instance court for retrial.