The culprit of the accident died without paying compensation: the appellate court obliged the heir to repay the debt

The Khmelnytskyi appellate court upheld the decision to recover the debt from the heir, which arose based on a court-approved settlement agreement regarding compensation for damage to the victim in a traffic accident. The court concluded that the obligation to fulfill the monetary commitment defined by the settlement agreement did not cease with the debtor's death and passed to the heir within the value of the inherited property.

Case circumstances

The dispute arose after a traffic accident that occurred at the end of 2020. The car driver violated traffic rules and caused the victim moderate bodily injuries. Later, the court exempted him from criminal liability under part one of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to active repentance.

In March 2022, a settlement agreement was concluded between the victim and the driver, which was approved by the court. The parties agreed that the culprit of the accident would compensate the victim for property and moral damages. The total amount of payments was 172,263.84 UAH, to be paid in installments over 35 months.

Before his death, the debtor partially fulfilled the obligation, paying 60,252.91 UAH. After his death, an unpaid debt of over 112 thousand UAH remained.

The sole heir of the deceased was his son, who accepted the inheritance. The inherited property included an insurance payment and two land plots. The victim approached the heir demanding payment of the remaining debt, but the obligation was not voluntarily fulfilled. After that, the creditor went to court.

The court of first instance satisfied the claim and recovered 112,010.93 UAH from the heir within the value of the inherited property.

Arguments of the appeal

The heir requested to cancel the decision and deny the claim. He stated that at the time of the settlement agreement he was a minor, did not participate in its conclusion, and was unaware of the debt until receiving the creditor's claim.

The appellant also argued that the plaintiff chose an improper method of protection, as he should have demanded enforcement against specific inherited property rather than monetary recovery.

Additionally, the heir insisted that the court did not establish the amount of debt as of the date of the inheritance opening. In his opinion, a significant part of the payments under the settlement agreement was to be made after the debtor's death and therefore could not be considered when determining the heir's liability.

Position of the appellate court

The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance and noted that the obligation arising from the court-approved settlement agreement is not inseparably linked to the debtor's person. Therefore, it did not cease after his death and became part of the inheritance.

The panel of judges emphasized that in the event of the debtor's death in legal relations allowing succession, his obligations pass to the heirs. At the same time, the heir is liable for the debts of the decedent only within the value of the inherited property.

The court also referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the law ensures a balance between the interests of the creditor and the heir. The creditor does not lose the right to demand fulfillment of the obligation after the debtor's death, but the heir cannot bear responsibility beyond the value of the inherited property.

Rejecting the arguments about improper protection methods, the appellate court noted that the creditor is not limited solely to the claim for enforcement against the inherited property. The law allows the use of other effective means of protecting civil rights, including demanding compulsory fulfillment of the obligation by the heir within the value of the inherited property.

Moreover, the court disagreed with the appellant's references to the Supreme Court's practice regarding the determination of debt as of the date of inheritance opening and recognized the cited court decisions as irrelevant to these legal relations. In fact, the appellate instance supported the conclusion about the possibility of recovering the entire unpaid amount defined by the settlement agreement.

Court conclusion

The Khmelnytskyi appellate court in case No. 601/1560/25 concluded that after accepting the inheritance, the heir assumed the obligation to fulfill the monetary commitment defined by the court-approved settlement agreement. Since the creditor filed his claims in the manner and within the deadlines established by law, and the value of the inherited property allowed satisfying these claims, there were no grounds to cancel the decision of the court of first instance.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Bilohirsk District Court of Khmelnytskyi region to recover 112,010.93 UAH from the heir remained unchanged.

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