Daughter-in-law has taken care of her mother-in-law for more than ten years, but in the end she has doubts: Should she be filial?

Taking care of her in-laws alone for more than ten years, she became Xiaohui's third husband, with a brother and a sister above, two sisters and five brothers and sisters below.

In-laws are ordinary employees of the unit. After retirement, they live on a fixed monthly pension and have been living in the house they bought from their unit many years ago.

Among the in-laws' five children, only Xiaohui's husband tries his best to take care of the elderly. The two sisters married to other places and rarely came back; Big brother and big sister don't know what they are "busy" at ordinary times, so they can't see each other all day. The four left the old man to Xiaohui's husband "tacitly".

Xiaohui and her husband are very kind and kind people. Although I occasionally complain about my brothers and sisters, when it comes to taking care of my parents, they often comfort each other:

"Don't worry about others, do what you should do, and be good to your parents and your conscience."

In this case, it is impossible to say that there is no gap in my heart. Slowly, the communication between brothers and sisters is getting less and less.

My in-laws have been in poor health since they retired. Xiaohui and her husband often go back to visit, but they just run errands. Neither of them has a high income, but even so, the elderly can't afford medical insurance, and Xiaohui and her husband will bear it.

Then my father-in-law left first. Mother-in-law left alone, and they were not at ease, so they discussed taking her over to live together. After the other four children learned about this, they were even more happy at leisure.

Xiaohui's husband died unexpectedly before retirement. After dealing with this matter, there was a great controversy at home about the distribution of her husband's pension: after so many years, the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law have established a very deep affection, although the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law are more intimate than the mother and daughter. The mother-in-law insisted on giving all her shares to Xiaohui, and the other four children took turns to persuade. Finally, my mother-in-law got angry, and the matter was finally solved:

"This matter has nothing to do with you! I will give it to whoever I want, and no one will ever mention it to me again! "

After her husband died, "NianLia" lived alone. Xiaohui has no contact with her husband's brothers and sisters. In this way, Xiaohui took care of her mother-in-law for more than ten years until her mother-in-law died.

Before her death, her mother-in-law told Xiaohui alone that all the deposits in her suite, including the passbook, were given to Xiaohui. After dealing with her mother-in-law's affairs, Xiaohui told her husband's brothers and sisters what the old man meant and what he planned to do. But the result was completely beyond her imagination: not only could it not be done, but there was a conflict!

At first, the husband's four brothers and sisters insisted on sharing the old man's house and savings equally. Xiaohui, nothing happened! After some fighting, the four men gave in: they were divided into five parts, and Xiaohui took one of them.

Xiaohui disagreed. For so many years, she and her husband have been taking care of their in-laws, and then for more than ten years, they have been supporting themselves, with difficulties and personal efforts. Don't these count?

After a long struggle, I had to file a lawsuit. The final result disappointed Xiaohui:

Xiaohui got her in-laws' property 1/6, because some of it was "offset" by her husband's property.

Xiaohui really couldn't understand and accept this result, and even had doubts about her behavior: was she "fighting"? If this is a reasonable result, which daughter-in-law will be willing to support her in-laws in the future?

Self-doubt: What should we advocate? This is a real case.

Let's take a look at some basic situations first:

Mother-in-law's oral expression is invalid. First, my mother-in-law can't dispose of her house and savings alone, because only part of it belongs to her personally; Second, this expression does not represent a will and does not meet the formal requirements of an oral will. Xiaohui, as a daughter-in-law, took the place of her husband after his death, and fulfilled her main support obligations to her in-laws. She can be the first legal heir and enjoy equal inheritance rights with other children of her in-laws. Because Xiaohui's husband died before her mother-in-law, her husband's inheritance was legally inherited by her four brothers and sisters through her mother-in-law. So, after weighing, we "offset" each other, deducting this share from Xiaohui's inheritance from her in-laws and "returning" Xiaohui's family. Except for the first basis, the other two bases are debatable.

The first basis is that Xiaohui's mother-in-law's house and deposits belong to her in-laws' property, and her mother-in-law cannot dispose of them alone. The meaning of property distribution that my mother-in-law had verbally expressed to Xiaohui before. If it is recognized as an oral will, it must be witnessed by two or more disinterested witnesses. So it can't be considered as a will.

The second basis is that according to the inheritance law, including the civil code to be implemented next year, there are relevant provisions: widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law who has performed the main maintenance obligations for her in-laws are the legal heirs in the first order. However, as legal heirs, the amount of support obligations is not the basis of distribution, but follows the principle of "equal" inheritance of all legal heirs. From this perspective, it is obviously biased.

The third basis. Because Xiaohui's husband died late in her mother-in-law, according to legal inheritance, her mother-in-law has the right to inherit Xiaohui's husband's inheritance. But my mother-in-law didn't say anything (such as giving up in writing). Therefore, the default is to accept inheritance. After the death of her mother-in-law, this part of the inheritance is inherited by her children (including Xiaohui's children) according to the law. Doing a "touch" action is nothing more than making a balance. However, whether this "arrival" should be, I am afraid, is the essential question.

Xiaohui's doubts are completely understandable:

What does the distribution of money represent? Perhaps, it doesn't mean that money is more than money, but an orientation, an orientation of values-focusing on the algorithm of property distribution, or advocating children to support their parents?

Is it greedy to inherit the property of in-laws? If so, then why do people who fail to fulfill their maintenance obligations enjoy equal property distribution rights with themselves? Who is greedy?

The conclusion of Xiaohui's affair is slightly desirable, and Xiaohui is judged as the first heir. In addition, there is a very obvious feature: bookkeeping-calculating the distribution share according to the inheritance rules is like calculating "1+ 1" as equal to 2, which is the correct answer. But it ignores the problem of "1+ 1"-this is the essence of the ending of this matter.

If we only calculate the results without considering the process, then I believe many people will choose to "avoid the heavy and light": the process of supporting the elderly is more troublesome, so we choose to avoid it; After the old man's death, it's easy to settle accounts, so just wait for it.

Is this what we want to see? If there is, I believe it will be "confused".

There are several knowledge points in this matter:

1. About Xiaohui's husband's pension.

Xiaohui got a pension after her husband died.

This pension is not Xiaohui's husband's living property and does not involve inheritance. From the distribution of pension, the reference is legal inheritance-therefore, it should be distributed by Xiaohui, children and Xiaohui's mother-in-law.

This part of the money, Xiaohui's husband's brothers and sisters, has no right to divide, and can not affect the distribution opinions of others. Therefore, it is reasonable, reasonable and legal for Xiaohui's mother-in-law to be angry.

2. On the issue of property inheritance.

In this matter, a * * * has inherited three times, namely, the death of her father-in-law, her husband and her mother-in-law.

After my father-in-law died, half of my in-laws' property was legally inherited. Five children and Xiaohui's mother-in-law are equally inherited by six people. After her husband's death, she legally inherited half of Xiaohui's property, which was divided equally by Xiaohui, the children (not mentioned above) and Xiaohui's mother-in-law. After her mother-in-law's death, her mother-in-law's property (including herself, those who inherited her father-in-law, and those who inherited Xiaohui's husband) was equally inherited by her four surviving children and Xiaohui (as one of the first heirs). The above distribution is based on legal inheritance.

For families with many children and different degrees of filial piety, of course, it also includes the situation that daughter-in-law (or son-in-law) like Xiaohui takes the place of spouse to support the elderly wholeheartedly. Statutory inheritance has the above problems.

Let's make a hypothesis:

Suppose Xiaohui's mother-in-law gave up Xiaohui's inheritance right in writing when her husband died, or Xiaohui's mother-in-law designated Xiaohui as the sole heir to her personal legal property (including her share of inheritance) through a legal and effective will, so the result is completely different:

Xiaohui's own property is still in his own home, and her husband's brothers and sisters have no right to divide it; Two thirds of the in-laws' property will be inherited by Xiaohui. In any case, it is much better than 1/6-more importantly, it has a minimum respect for Xiaohui's daughter-in-law's support behavior.