Insights

Can people in Ningbo who are not on the will list divide their inheritance?

Ningbo Author：LuXu WANG

Many people assume that an inheritance is only left to those “on the list”—spouses, children, parents, or individuals specifically named in the will. If a person is neither in the statutory order of inheritance nor named in a will, does that mean they have no claim to the estate whatsoever? In Ningbo, the answer is no. The Civil Code of the People's Republic of China specifically provides a pathway for two categories of "outsiders not on the list": one is individuals who were supported by the deceased during their lifetime, and the other is individuals who provided substantial care to the deceased. As long as they meet the statutory requirements, they too may inherit a proper share of the estate. This rule is set forth in Article 1,131 of the Civil Code and is commonly referred to in practice as “discretionary inheritance distribution” or “distribution of an estate at the court’s discretion.”

We also need to clarify a rule that is very easy to confuse. Article 1,129 of the Civil Code provides that a widowed daughter-in-law who has fulfilled the primary duty of supporting her in-laws, or a widowed son-in-law who has fulfilled the primary duty of supporting his parents-in-law, shall be regarded as a first-order heir. The former refers to “receiving a proper share of the inheritance,” while the latter refers to “directly acquiring the status of an heir”; the legal consequences are not the same. The following discussion, centered on these two rules, will sequentially address who is entitled to a share, how much each person may receive, how such claims should be asserted, whether they conflict with a will, and when such claims must be brought. Finally, it will provide practical guidance specific to the Ningbo area.

1. Who can inherit: the two categories of "outsiders" under Article 1,131

Article 1,131 of the Civil Code reads as follows: Persons who were financially supported by the deceased but are not heirs, or other persons who provided substantial care to the deceased, may be allocated a proper share of the estate. This sentence presents two scenarios in parallel; meeting either one is sufficient, and both do not need to be satisfied simultaneously.

Category One: Persons who were financially dependent on the deceased.

The keyword for this type of person is "reliance." During the decedent’s lifetime, they were primarily dependent on the decedent for financial support and care, lacked the ability to independently secure their livelihood, or were in fact economically and otherwise reliant on the decedent. Common examples include relatives who were long-term dependents of the deceased, cohabiting partners who lived together without having registered their marriage but were financially supported by the deceased, and individuals who were taken in and raised without any formal legal procedures being completed. The determining factor is whether the decedent provided that person with support amounting to a “source of livelihood.”

Category Two: Persons Who Provided Substantial Support to the Deceased

The key word for this type of person is “supporting many dependents.” Their contributions are in the opposite direction—providing financial support, daily care, or labor assistance to the deceased—but such contributions are not obligations imposed on them by law. “Relatively more” is a quantitative requirement, typically necessitating a level of “primary” or “long-term and frequent.” Typical examples include nephews and nieces caring for elderly, childless aunts and uncles, neighbors providing long-term care for solitary seniors, and caregivers or nursing assistants offering extended, hands-on care beyond the scope of their employment relationship.

It should be noted that “other than the heirs” is a shared prerequisite. If the person in question is already a statutory heir—belonging to the first order of succession, namely the spouse, children, or parents, or to the second order, namely siblings, grandparents, or maternal grandparents—then Article 1,131 cannot be invoked; instead, one should proceed under Article 1,130, which provides that those who have fulfilled the primary duty of support may receive a larger share. In a typical case publicized by the Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court, the deceased, Zhang, suffered from a long-term illness and was hospitalized after his divorce. During the two decades that followed, his daughter, Zhang, failed to fulfill her primary duty of support; instead, Zhang’s siblings—Zhang Jia and two others—provided care for many years and also handled the funeral arrangements. The court determined that the three individuals had fulfilled their primary support obligations and, accordingly, may be awarded a portion of the estate. The final judgment awarded 40% of the estate to the daughter and 20% each to the three siblings. The three siblings were originally second‑order heirs and, in the presence of a first‑order heir—the daughter—would not have participated in the inheritance. However, the court, by recognizing the fact that they had provided substantial care and support, ensured that their contributions were duly acknowledged.

The distinction from Article 1,129

Article 1,129 addresses the rights of a widowed daughter-in-law and a widowed son-in-law. It requires two conditions to be met simultaneously: first, “being a widow or widower”—the daughter-in-law’s spouse or the son-in-law’s spouse has already passed away; second, “having fulfilled the primary duty of support.” Those who meet the conditions are directly "elevated" to first-order heirs and participate in the distribution according to their inheritance shares. Moreover, Article 18 of the Interpretation (I) of the Inheritance Chapter explicitly states that whether or not such individuals remarry does not affect their children's right to inherit by way of substitution as first-order heirs. This differs from the discretionary distribution under Article 1,131: the beneficiaries of discretionary distribution are always “persons other than heirs,” and they receive a “proper share of the estate.” In nature, this is more akin to an independent claim rather than an inheritance entitlement based on heir status. The Cixi People’s Court once used a situational drama to explain this rule: after the death of his wife, a son-in-law has, for over a decade without fail, remained in his parents-in-law’s home to care for them; if he meets the relevant conditions, he may be recognized as a first‑order heir.

Additionally, Article 19 of the Interpretation of the Succession Chapter (I) sets a standard for "primary support obligations": if an individual provided the primary financial support for the deceased or rendered significant assistance in terms of labor or other services, they shall be deemed to have fulfilled their primary maintenance or support obligations. This standard also applies to determining “greater dependency.”

2. How much can be allocated: "appropriate" discretionary factors

The law uses the term “appropriate” rather than a fixed ratio; the court exercises its discretion on a case-by-case basis, taking into account a range of factors that are carefully weighed in practice. These factors generally include the following.

  • Intensity of caregiving: Does it primarily involve providing financial support, or is it mainly hands-on care? Is it long-term, around-the-clock care, or occasional visits to lend a hand?
  • Duration of support: The longer, more frequent, and more sustained the support, the more likely it is to result in a higher share.
  • Total amount of the estate: When the estate is substantial, the discretionary share can be more generous in absolute terms; when the estate is meager, it is necessary to balance the interests of all parties.
  • Circumstances of Other Heirs: If there are among the heirs individuals who lack the capacity to work and have no source of livelihood, a necessary share shall be reserved for them when determining the distribution.
  • Local standard of living: Whether the inheritance received can ensure the recipient’s basic livelihood.
  • Relationship with the deceased and the deceased’s wishes during their lifetime: Did the decedent ever explicitly express the intention to provide for the caregiver?

An easily overlooked rule is that Article 20 of the Interpretation of the Succession Chapter (I) stipulates that discretionary inheritance "may, depending on the specific circumstances, be more or less than that of the heirs." In other words, the discretionary share is not necessarily lower than the share of an heir; in certain exceptional circumstances, it may even be higher. This challenges the intuition that outsiders can only receive a smaller share. The determining factor in the allocation of shares still lies in the weight of the facts pertaining to the duty of support.

3. How to assert: parties, cause of action, and burden of proof

The person entitled to discretionary allocation must be “qualified to sit at the table.” Interpretation of the Succession Chapter (I), Article 21, explicitly stipulates that any person who may be entitled to a proper share of the estate pursuant to Article 1131 has the right, when their legally acquired inheritance rights are infringed upon, to file a lawsuit with the People’s Court as an independent litigant. This means that the beneficiary of a discretionary share does not have to rely on any heir and may, as the plaintiff, directly assert their own entitlement.

With regard to the cause of action, such disputes are generally classified as “inheritance disputes,” which may be specifically described as statutory inheritance disputes. If the deceased did not leave a will during their lifetime, the statutory succession procedure applies; claims for equitable distribution may be adjudicated concurrently in the inheritance litigation. If the estate has already been divided in a separate case, and the person entitled to equitable distribution did not participate but had their rights infringed, they may file a third-party revocation action. In a case heard by a Beijing court, although the marriage between Liu and the deceased, Fang, was declared invalid, Liu was found to be without fault, having cohabited with Fang and fulfilled her duty of support. After a third party’s mediation resulted in the division of the estate in a manner that infringed upon her right to a reasonable share, she obtained judicial protection through a third-party revocation action.

The burden of proof is the central issue in cases of this type. The entitled party must prove the existence and extent of the “dependent relationship”; evidence may be gathered from the following avenues:

  • Evidence of Care: Everyday photos, videos, and chat records can reveal details of long-term companionship and caregiving.
  • Medical and Expense Receipts: Medical records, hospitalization records, payment receipts, and receipts for medication and nursing expenses.
  • Financial Transactions: Transfer records and remittance vouchers, to substantiate financial assistance or payment on behalf of the applicant for living expenses or medical expenses.
  • Certificate from the primary-level organization: A statement regarding the dependency situation issued by the village (residents’) committee, community, or employer.
  • Witness testimony: Neighbors, relatives and friends, medical personnel, and other individuals with knowledge of the facts appear in court to testify.

The party asserting the claim bears the burden of proof. The party seeking a discretionary award should, to the extent possible, establish a clear timeline demonstrating that the caregiving was continuous and primary, rather than occasional.

The defendant is generally listed as another heir. If the deceased has no heirs, or if all heirs have renounced their inheritance, the estate may be administered by an estate administrator; in such cases, the civil affairs department or the village committee may be named as the defendant. In Case No. 9 of the Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court, the beneficiary, Sun, brought a claim for inheritance against the civil affairs bureau of the deceased’s domicile during his lifetime, and the court recognized Sun’s status as the estate administrator.

4. Relationship with wills, donation-for-support agreements, and statutory inheritance

Let’s first discuss the order in which the three appear. The Civil Code stipulates that, upon the commencement of inheritance, statutory succession shall apply; where a will exists, inheritance or bequest shall be administered in accordance with the will; and where there is a legacy-support agreement, it shall be administered in accordance with the agreement. In other words, the gift-for-care agreement has the highest legal effect, followed by the will, and lastly by statutory succession (which also includes discretionary inheritance). The Cixi People’s Court once cited the case in which “Xiao Jia, relying on a legacy and support agreement, prevailed over his biological son, Xiao Yi,” to illustrate that such agreements take precedence over statutory inheritance.

Let’s debunk another common misconception: Does having a will automatically keep “outsiders” from inheriting? Not necessarily. Article 1,131 applies to “persons other than heirs”; its basis is the relationship of support rather than inheritance eligibility. There is an inherent tension in whether a testator, by making a will, can dispose of his or her property to the fullest extent and whether such a will can preclude a claim for reasonable provision made by a dependent. A more secure understanding is that if the decedent has made arrangements for the dependant through a will or bequest during his lifetime, his intention should be respected. If the will does not take into account the "outsiders" who have been supported for a long time, the dependant can still claim the appropriate inheritance according to law, and the fact of support can be proved by the court, which will make a balance between respecting the freedom of will and protecting the dependant.

It is also necessary to distinguish between the two avenues of redress. If the decedent and the dependant have signed a bequest and support agreement, and the dependant has fulfilled the obligation of giving birth, death and burial according to the agreement, the dependant claims the "right to bequest" and takes the path of the agreement (such as Sun Mou in Qingdao Case 9); If there is no agreement, only because of the fact of long-term support and request for the inheritance, is the discretionary path of Article 1,331.

From another perspective, a discretionary gift does not “compete” with statutory inheritance. In the case of heirs, the discretion is to distribute part of the estate to the dependants, and the rest is still distributed according to the law or will. When there is no heir and the estate should belong to the state or the collective, Article 41 of the (I) on the Interpretation of Inheritance stipulates that the people's court shall appropriately distribute the estate according to the circumstances.

5. Several Typical Types of Disputes

Cared for a cohabiting partner for many years.

When a couple has lived together for many years under the guise of marriage without having registered their marriage, the surviving partner often faces the predicament of having “no legal status” after the other partner’s death. As long as it can be proven that one was supported by the deceased or provided substantial care to the deceased, one may claim a reasonable share of the estate.

Long-term care provided by a nanny or caregiver

The employment relationship itself does not produce the right of inheritance, but if the nanny and the nurse take care of the decedent in a long-term and stable way beyond their duties, and even pay the medical and living expenses with personal expenses, forming a de facto support relationship, it may be in line with "more support for the decedent" and obtain appropriate inheritance. The key lies in distinguishing between “remunerated services” and “support contributions that go beyond such services.”

Foster child or adopted child without completed adoption registration

If a person was adopted and lived with the adoptive parent during their minority, and took the adoptive father’s surname, they may be deemed to have established a de facto adoption relationship, thereby acquiring the status of a legal heir as an adopted child (as exemplified by Guo Moujia in Case No. 8 from Qingdao). If a de facto adoption relationship has not been established and the person does not qualify as an heir, but there is indeed a long-term history of providing support, they may still, as a secondary option, claim a discretionary share pursuant to Article 1,131.

Nephews and nieces provide for their uncles and aunts.

Nephews, nieces, and their children are not included among the statutory heirs; however, it is quite common for them to provide long-term care for elderly uncles, aunts, or other senior relatives who are either widowed or childless. This category of persons is the most typical group to which Article 1,131 applies; as long as the fact of providing support is clear and has been sustained over a considerable period, they have a substantial chance of being entitled to a share of the estate.

6. Key points on evidence presentation and practice

Based on the preceding analysis, there are several practical recommendations at the operational level.

  • Evidence of the fact of support must be documented.: Photos, videos, chat records, transfer receipts, medical records, and payment bills from everyday interactions should be carefully preserved; it is often difficult to gather evidence afterward if you try to retrieve them later.
  • Obtain endorsement from a grassroots organization: Please have the village (residents’) committee, community, or workplace issue a statement regarding the dependency situation; if necessary, solicit testimony from neighbors.
  • Clarifying the Differences Between "Fuyang" and "Fuyang": “Support” refers to mutual financial and practical assistance between people of the same generation; when it is from elders to younger generations, it is called “raising”; and when it is from younger generations to elders, it is called “providing for.” Although the wording is brief, the relationships it refers to differ; the phrase “provided more support” in the provision emphasizes the mutual provision of assistance.
  • Distinguishing between discretionary inheritance and statutory inheritance: If the person is already a statutory heir, they receive a “larger share”; only those who are not statutory heirs qualify for discretionary inheritance. The evidence and request methods for the two paths differ slightly.
  • Prioritize negotiation and document it in writing: If you can reach a consensus with the other heirs, it is best to formalize the agreement in writing, clearly specifying each party’s share and the method of payment, thereby reducing potential disputes down the line.
  • Apply for investigation and evidence collection or property preservation when necessary.: If you are worried about the transfer or concealment of the estate, you can claim it together when you sue to prevent "you can't get the property if you win the lawsuit".

7. time and timing: when will it be proposed and whether it will expire

The right of discretionary claim is an independent right of claim in nature, and the three-year statute of limitations stipulated by the Civil Code is usually applicable, counting from the date when the obligee knows or should know that the right has been infringed. The most common "rights infringed" node is when the estate is divided and disposed of by others, and the person who gives the right is excluded.

The most favorable time point is "raised at the time of the division of the estate". After the death of the decedent, the beginning of the inheritance, and before the division of the estate, the right holder should claim in time, preferably in the inheritance litigation, which saves time and facilitates the unified discretion of the court. If you wait until the estate has been divided and the property has been transferred, and then go back to claim it, the difficulty and cost will increase significantly.

If you miss the time point of division, you can still get relief through the third party's revocation suit within the time limit, but you have to bear heavier burden of proof and time pressure. Succession disputes are also subject to long-term restrictions, and courts generally no longer protect them if they are sued after a long period of time after the beginning of succession (the death of the decedent). Therefore, a practical suggestion is: once you perceive that you may have discretion, consult as soon as possible, fix the evidence as soon as possible, claim as soon as possible, and do not put it off until the end.

Class Case Reference: In the case of Cao Mou v. Cao Mou A and other legal inheritance cases (Case 46 of 2026 Cases of Chinese Court, Marriage, Family and Inheritance Disputes), if the court considers that the second-in-line heir has no obligation to support the decedent but has done his best to support the decedent for a long time, the inheritance can be applied by analogy, and must be comprehensive support continuity, comprehensiveness, necessity and subjective will to determine "support more". Trial court: Beijing Tongzhou District People's Court of First Instance and Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court of Second Instance:(2024) Beijing 03 Min Zhong No. 14757; Source: Knowledge Base "2026 Cases of Chinese Courts, Marriage, Family and Inheritance Disputes".

8. Frequently Asked Questions

Question 1: Can a person who is completely excluded from both the will and the statutory order of succession still inherit?Not necessarily. The prerequisite for the distribution of the estate is one of the two types of circumstances in accordance with Article 1,191-relying on the support of the decedent, or supporting the decedent more, and there is evidence to support it. Simply “knowing” and “having contact” is not enough.

Question 2: The old man made a will and gave all his property to his children. I have taken care of the old man for many years. Can I still share it?It can be asserted. The basis for discretionary inheritance is the fact of support, not the status of an heir. If the will does not take into account the "outsider" of long-term support, the dependant may still request the appropriate inheritance in accordance with the law, and the court will weigh the freedom of the will against the protection of the dependant.

Question 3: What are the differences between widowed daughter-in-law, widowed son-in-law and "people with more support? If the widowed daughter-in-law and son-in-law fulfill their main support obligations, they shall be directly the first order heirs according to Article 129 and shall be distributed according to the inheritance share. Even if other people have more support, they only "get the appropriate inheritance" according to Article 1,1

91and do not obtain the status of heir.

Question 4: How much can be distributed, and is there a fixed ratio?There is no fixed ratio. The court's comprehensive maintenance intensity, maintenance time, total amount of inheritance, other heirs status, local living standards and other factors discretion, the discretionary share may be more or less than the heirs.

Question 5: If the decedent has no heir or the heirs all give up the inheritance, can I still share it?Yes. At this time, the estate should belong to the State or the collective, but at the discretion of the owner to make a request for the acquisition of the estate, the court shall, as the case may be, appropriate to the estate.

Question 6: The fact of providing support occurred many years ago; will claiming it now be time-barred? The right of claim is usually subject to a three-year statute of limitations, starting from the date when the right is known or should be known to be infringed, and the right beyond the long-term period will no longer be protected. The longer you delay, the greater the risk; it is advisable to assert your rights as soon as possible.

9. Practical Insights from a Lawyer

Many people think that the inheritance only belongs to the "people on the list"-spouses, children, parents, or those named in the will, and those outside the list are completely excluded. This understanding narrows the scope of the rule. The law leaves channels for two types of "outsiders": one is those who mainly rely on the support of the decedent and lack an independent source of living, and the other is those who support the decedent more and can be assigned to the appropriate inheritance if they meet the conditions. This is different from the widowed daughter-in-law and son-in-law who have fulfilled their main support obligations and become the first order heir directly. The object is given an "appropriate" share, not an equal share with the heir.

It is advocated that the party who gives discretion should give evidence by himself, and the sooner the evidence consciousness is established, the better. Those who rely on support should be able to explain the situation of the decedent who has provided a source of income for a long time and their lack of independent ability. For those who have more support, they should provide evidence of companionship, care and financial support, such as long-term care records, expense vouchers, and neighborhood or community testimony. These materials should be kept consciously before the decedent's death, and when the person leaves and then pieced together temporarily, the persuasiveness and completeness will be compromised. If the will has already divided all the property, it is necessary to take into account the specific circumstances to claim whether the request can be supported and from which part.

When talking about this kind of arrangement in the family, it is best to express the will clearly while the decedent is alive, for example, through wills and maintenance agreements, the people who have taken care of themselves are also included in the arrangement, so as to avoid the passive face of unfamiliar claims by the heirs behind. If the heir is willing to take care of the relatives who have been relying on the elderly for a long time, he can also negotiate the compensation method in advance and put it in writing to reduce the seesaw in the future. When it is found that someone has made a discretionary request, first judge whether it meets the conditions and whether the evidence is solid, and then decide whether to negotiate or go through the procedure. Don't simply reject it with "you are not on the list", which may push the matter to more complicated disputes.