Check out some similar questions!

ywebster · May 11, 2011, 01:53 PM

My father died suddenly f a massive heart attack in 12/89. My mother died in 1996. I was informed by he then attorney that Mom had changed her will and left her half of their property to me and my older brother. Our younger brother had died in 1983. She did not mention him nor his 4 children. Dad's will had listed all 3 of heir children therefore the attorney explained that Dad's half of the property has to be divided 3 ways and Mom's half is to be divided 2 ways. Our deceased brother's children wants all Dad and mom's property to be divided 3 ways. They have filed a petition to have Mom's will declared null and void because of the forced inheritance law which I had assumed had been changed.

AK lawyer · May 11, 2011, 02:03 PM

Strange that another user asked this identical question at nearly the same time. Are you that other person?

It appears that a part (CC 1485-1492) of the Civil Code dealing with forced heirship was repealed in 1990. There are, apparently, as of 2009 anyway, still provisions on the books though, CC 1493 et seq.

ywebster · May 11, 2011, 02:12 PM

Yes, can someone give me an answer? Thank you.

AK lawyer · May 11, 2011, 02:20 PM

Reason I ask is that we prefer that you do not start multiple threads on the same subject. I looked at it and gave you some infomrmation in the other thread.

However I am not an expert on the Civil Code, so if you need more information on it you might have to wait until someone with more knowledge on the subject comes along.

lynetgib4 · Jun 5, 2012, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

Strange that another user asked this identical question at nearly the same time. Are you that other person?

It appears that a part (CC 1485-1492) of the Civil Code dealing with forced heirship was repealed in 1990. There are, apparently, as of 2009 anyway, still provisions on the books though, CC 1493 et seq.

Yes

lynetgib4 · Jun 5, 2012, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by lynetgib4

yes

I read the similar question we are not discussing the same individual there are some descrepencies in their sernerio.

lynetgib4 · Jun 5, 2012, 02:24 PM

I will have to look up cc1485-1492et seq and cc1493et seq to clearly understand was you are saying thank you

AK lawyer · Jun 5, 2012, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by lynetgib4

I will have to look up cc1485-1492et seq and cc1493et seq to clearly understand was you are saying thank you

Funny, I can't clearly remember writing this more than a year ago. I will be interested in finding out if what I wrote was right.