Should a Claim Be Brought for a Deceased Person’s Sham Transaction or for Reduction?

Reduction and Reserved Shares

Prepared by: Constantinople

The answer depends on the transaction’s legal nature, rather than a belief that property was withheld from an heir. A deceased person’s sham transaction involves investigating a mismatch between the apparent transaction and the parties’ actual intention. Reduction concerns whether a valid benefit infringed an heir’s statutorily protected reserved share. Different claims may arise from the same events, but these are not interchangeable names of actions.

For example, if an apparent sale is alleged actually to be a gift intended to deprive heirs, the conditions for a deceased person’s sham transaction are examined. Where a gift was genuinely made, not every gift is automatically invalid. Reserved-share status, disposable portion and benefits subject to reduction are calculated separately. Not every intestate heir has a reserved share.

In reduction, the one-year forfeiture period from learning of reserved-share infringement and the ten-year period from opening a will or, for other dispositions, opening succession are important. A title cancellation and registration claim based on a deceased person’s sham transaction is generally subject to neither limitation nor a forfeiture period. Special provisions such as cadastral rules, whether the claim truly rests on that ground and other legal bases are examined separately. It cannot be concluded that all inheritance claims have no deadline.

We read the title transaction document, price and payment records, date of death, other benefits and heirs’ positions together. We also do not assume that case law concerning registered real estate applies unchanged to bank funds or company shares. The appropriate claim follows the evidence and, where necessary, calculation.