A potential heir cannot be deprived of the right to appeal while the inheritance dispute is ongoing — Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, composed of judges of the First Judicial Panel of the Cassation Civil Court, drew attention to an important procedural aspect of inheritance disputes: a person cannot be deprived of the opportunity to challenge decisions regarding inherited property solely because their right to the inheritance has not yet been finally confirmed. If an heir continues to defend their rights in another court proceeding, courts must take this circumstance into account when deciding on their right to appellate review.

The case under review concerned an apartment of a deceased man, the ownership of which the court recognized in favor of his sister by inheritance. However, the deceased's nephew, who also claimed the inheritance and sought to restore the possibility to accept it through the court, disagreed with this decision. The appellate court closed the proceedings on his complaint, considering that the decision about the apartment did not affect his rights. The Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion and recognized such a decision as premature.

Circumstances of case No. 306/2288/22

After the man's death, his sister filed a lawsuit to recognize her ownership rights to a cooperative apartment by inheritance. She could not formalize the inheritance through a notary due to the absence of title documents for the apartment and the lack of state registration of ownership rights.

The plaintiff stated that her brother had effectively possessed the apartment since the building was commissioned, fully paid its cost, lived there, and paid contributions to the condominium association. The court of first instance agreed with these arguments and recognized her ownership rights to the apartment by inheritance.

Subsequently, an appellate complaint was filed by the deceased's nephew, who was not a party to the case. He claimed inheritance rights by representation under Article 1266 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since his father — the deceased's brother — died before the inheritance was opened.

Initially, the Zakarpattia Appellate Court reinstated his deadline for appeal and opened proceedings. However, later the proceedings were closed. The court reasoned that in another case the claimant had already been denied an extension to accept the inheritance after his uncle's death, and therefore the decision recognizing ownership rights for the deceased's sister did not affect his rights and interests.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach.

The panel of judges noted that before the decision to close the appellate proceedings was made, cassation proceedings had been opened regarding the nephew's request for an extension to accept the inheritance. Thus, at that time, he had not yet exhausted all legal means to protect his inheritance rights.

Under these circumstances, the appellate court's conclusion that the district court's decision did not concern the claimant's rights was premature. The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural law provisions must be applied with reasonableness, and the right to a fair trial does not allow an overly formalistic approach to assessing the case circumstances.

The court also reminded that the right to appellate review belongs not only to parties involved in the case but also to persons who did not participate in the process if the court decision may affect their rights, freedoms, interests, or obligations.

What became an additional argument

During the cassation review, it was revealed that after the appellate proceedings were closed, the Supreme Court reviewed another inheritance case involving the same claimant.

In September 2025, the cassation court overturned the decisions of previous instances that had denied him an extension to accept the inheritance and issued a new ruling. The nephew was granted an additional two-month period to accept the inheritance after his uncle's death.

According to the Supreme Court, this additionally confirmed the premature nature of the appellate court's conclusions, which closed the proceedings despite being aware of the opening of cassation proceedings regarding the claimant's inheritance rights dispute.

Conclusion of the Supreme Court

The Cassation Civil Court concluded that the Zakarpattia Appellate Court violated procedural law norms and prematurely closed the appellate proceedings.

As a result, the Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court's ruling, and sent the case back to the appellate court for further consideration.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.