Inheritance during the war: the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court highlighted key legal positions for notaries

Olha Stupak, Judge of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, within the framework of a nationwide online event aimed at improving the professional level of notaries, drew attention to the Supreme Court's conclusions regarding issues of changing the order of inheritance, invalidity of wills, and inheritance of monetary assets.

She noted that resolving inheritance disputes has become especially relevant under martial law conditions. Due to the increase in the number of deaths during the war, the number of opened inheritance cases is also growing, leading to an increase in disputes in this area. The legislator, trying to respond promptly to war-related circumstances, repeatedly amended the Civil Code of Ukraine, and the government adopted resolutions regarding the procedure for processing inheritance cases. At the same time, the changes were not always successful and sometimes themselves became an additional source of disputes.

The lecturer emphasized that the processing of inheritance cases by its nature is an extrajudicial procedure that falls within the competence of notaries. Only in cases where such processing is impossible extrajudicially do participants in inheritance legal relations turn to the court. At the same time, according to the judge, sometimes going to court is used as a way to avoid notarial processing of the inheritance, which raises a debatable question about the limits of judicial interference in the activities of notaries: should the court limit itself to resolving only the part of the dispute that arose, leaving the notary the opportunity to complete the processing of the inheritance case, or can it give notaries certain instructions by its decision.

Olha Stupak also drew attention to the importance of the Supreme Court's practice for law enforcement. According to Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges," the Supreme Court's conclusions on the application of legal norms are binding for all state authorities and local self-government bodies, and courts of first and appellate instances are obliged to take into account the legal positions formulated by the cassation court. The judge noted that the model introduced in Ukraine as a result of the 2016 judicial reform effectively formed quasi-precedent law, and today it is difficult to imagine a law enforcement subject who could completely ignore the Supreme Court's conclusions when interpreting a particular norm.

The judge also drew attention to changes in the order of inheritance when persons who lived as one family with the decedent without registering marriage claim the inheritance. As a general rule, such persons are heirs of the fourth order, although in fact they were in relationships similar to marriage.

The lecturer noted that changing the order of inheritance is possible extrajudicially if there is consent from the heirs of the order being called (through a notarized agreement). If there is no consent, it is necessary to apply to the court. In case of dispute, the main claim requirement should be precisely the demand to change the order and grant the right to inherit, and establishing the fact of living as one family is the basis for such a claim. These conclusions are contained in the Supreme Court's ruling dated January 21, 2026, in case No. 172/356/24.

Therefore, the judge advised notaries, in the absence of heirs' consent, to explain to the claimant the right to apply to the court, and after the court decision on changing the order, to process inheritance rights taking this decision into account.

In the Supreme Court ruling dated September 17, 2025, in case No. 758/2359/18, the issue of termination of the right to inherit after divorce was considered. It states that marriage, if dissolved by court, terminates on the day the respective court decision comes into force, regardless of the registration of the divorce in the civil registry offices. A person whose marriage was dissolved by a court decision that became legally binding before the opening of the inheritance is not included among the first-order heirs by law, since at the time of the inheritance opening they were not married to the decedent.

Regarding the invalidity/nullity of a will, Olha Stupak drew attention to the Supreme Court ruling dated June 25, 2025, in case No. 129/859/20. The plaintiff requested to recognize her grandmother's will as invalid because it did not correspond to the decedent's will, who did not sign it and did not live at the place where the will was certified. The court indicated that the right to challenge a will belongs to a person whose inheritance rights or interests are violated by this will. In the absence of provisions in the will about depriving heirs by law of the right to inherit and the heir's refusal of the inheritance under the will, such a will does not create obstacles for the inheritance of property by heirs by law.

The lecturer also cited the Supreme Court's conclusions regarding inheritance of property that did not belong to the decedent; that filing a claim to establish the nullity of a will without applying the consequences of invalidity of the transaction is an improper method of protection; regarding the circle of close relatives when certifying a will; regarding the non-signing of a will, and others.

At the same time, the judge emphasized some conclusions of the Supreme Court, in particular regarding the return of funds unjustifiably acquired by the decedent and transferred to heirs after his death; joint shared ownership of persons who lived as one family without marriage; inheritance of bank deposits and interest; the heir's right to funds illegally issued by the bank; testamentary disposition; creditor's claims against heirs.

Thus, the judge formulated several summarizing theses.

First, inheritance disputes belong to the most complex categories of cases and require significant time and material costs, especially because almost all such cases go through all three judicial instances, and sometimes repeated cycles of consideration. Therefore, the lecturer urged notaries to more actively use the possibilities of extrajudicial dispute resolution.

Second, she emphasized the role of the notary in interpreting wills. Since the first subjects of interpretation are the heirs themselves, the notary should facilitate their reaching a common understanding of the will's content to avoid the need for judicial interpretation.

Third, regarding wills certified in temporarily uncontrolled territories, the content of which is unknown, the judge recognized the notary's right to, at their own discretion and in the presence of prolonged legal uncertainty, carry out the processing of inheritance rights despite the risk of further challenge.

Fourth, the judge noted that a notary is usually not involved in inheritance cases as a defendant or third party. However, if such status exists, their professional explanations can help the court resolve the dispute.

Separately, the judge drew attention to the problem of courts obtaining copies of inheritance case materials. Their absence repeatedly became grounds for canceling court decisions, so courts should guide interested persons to independently make copies at their own expense.

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.