Housing: A loan is not a gift you would be indebted to
On the legal side, lending does not always mean making a gift. Parents who provide housing to one of their children do not create a debt to pay the inheritance, according to a judgment of October 11 by the Court of Cassation . The notion of loan implies free, which means that the lender has not become impoverished.
A gift impoverishes whoever does it
As opposed to the loan, a gift impoverishes the one who offers it. In this sense, gifts are often problematic in succession. In October 2013, the Court of Cassation recalled that other heirs could claim the reinstatement of an asset in the estate to share, if the gift of the deceased harms them . This type of litigation disappears, however, in the event of the signing of a ” loan-for-use ” or ” commodity contract “.
In the case dealt with by the Court of Cassation, the deceased had signed a free service contract. He did not become impoverished and did not express his intention to gratify the beneficiary. The loan-to-use agreement excludes any notion of exchange, any idea of payment or any counterparty from the beneficiary. This contract ” only gives the beneficiary a right to the use of the thing ” specify the judges.
No dispossession, no gift
This type of contract does not transfer to the beneficiary any patrimonial right, neither on this thing, nor on its fruits or incomes. This system induces no dispossession, which makes it ” incompatible ” with the definition of ” gift ” that would be reinstated to the estate. According to the magistrates, the loss of income from rent not collected or the wear and tear of housing for example does not constitute an impoverishment of the owner.
In January 2012, the Court of Cassation also ruled that parents do not always make a gift by housing a child. This is not the case if in return, the child beneficiary of the agreement takes care of his parents daily or takes care of them . The notion of gift disappears in case of reciprocity of service.