英文摘要 |
This article reviews the significant developments in Taiwan’s family and succession law, which is stipulated in Civil Code, from 2010 to 2014. Instead of comprehensive legal reform, there have been merely a few slight revisions of the statutes in this period. The legislative amendments involve not only the matrimonial regime and parent-child relationships, which have been considered important issues in family law traditionally, but also support for elderly parents and inheritance following the social trend, especially the aging population.Regarding judicial activities, the Supreme Court’s decisions in the family law have been comparatively conservative during the last four years. Take opinions on the division of net assets upon divorce for example. The Supreme Court maintains that whether a debt is pre-marital or marital should be determined by the time of its creation, regardless of its purpose. That is, even though the husband’s debt is nothing to do with the wife’s life but merely for the interest of the husband, it is regarded as a marital debt and hence reduces the net value of the husband’s assets as long as it is created during marriage. Consequently, the husband will be less likely to distribute his assets to the wife. In addition, while dividing net assets, the Supreme Court stays close to the application of the “equal share rule” provided by statutes, notwithstanding one spouse’s contribution to the net assets being less than the contribution of the other. As for parent-child relationships, a number of cases regarding acknowledgement of children born out of wedlock seem more inclined to limit the possibility for the child to inherit the deceased father’s estates, which is against the child’s interests.On the other hand, decisions in succession law appear to be more open-minded and active. In general, if the creditor of the estate brings a lawsuit to the court and receive an enforceable court decision because the heir did not claim his/her limited responsibility for the debts, the heir cannot contest such a decision later. However, in the situation that the heir had no means to make a claim during the substantive procedure due to the application of the law, the Supreme Court allows the heir to file an objection against such a decision to prevent enforcement. Furthermore, with regard to testamentary transfer, the court distinguishes bequests to statutory heirs from those to other beneficiaries, giving them different effects on the period of prescription, the possibility of succession in strips when the beneficiary predeceases the testator, and the process of realty registration. To sum up, this article concludes that the Supreme Court has been more willing to apply the law flexibly and creatively in succession law than family law in the past five years. |