China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

China’s Supreme Court Releases Typical Cases on Estate Administrators Under Civil Code

Wed, 10 Jun 2026
Categories: China Legal Trends
Editor: C. J. Observer

On May 21, 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released five typical cases regarding the estate administrator system under the Civil Code, focusing on practical difficulties such as determining estate administrators, false waiver of inheritance, and settlement of estate management expenses.

The Inheritance Book of the Civil Code added the estate administrator system on the basis of the original Inheritance Law, systematically stipulating the generation methods, statutory duties, and civil liabilities of estate administrators, filling the gap in estate management rules.

In Case 2 released this time, after Yang passed away, his parents and daughter waived inheritance in writing, but actually received and disposed of his funeral expenses, pensions, and old-age insurance balance of more than 200,000 yuan, and promised to pay debts and paid 50,000 yuan in another case. The court ruled that the heirs denied their intention to waive inheritance through actual behaviors, and it did not belong to the situation where "all heirs waive inheritance", rejecting the creditor's application to designate the civil affairs department as the estate administrator.

“The appointment of civil affairs departments as default estate administrators is strictly a public policy safety net of last resort, applicable only when no eligible heirs exist or when all heirs legitimately renounce their claims”, stated Judge Chen Yifang, Director of the SPC’s First Civil Division, during a press briefing. “If an heir executes a superficial waiver while maintaining actual possession of the assets to evade creditors, such a waiver is null and void”.

 

Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)