Do you need to distribute all your assets in a will: how to avoid inheritance disputes

Is it really necessary to list in a will every apartment, bank account and valuable belonging to the testator? There is no clear legal requirement to do so, but the structure and level of detail of the will determine whether the rules on intestate succession will automatically apply to “unmentioned” assets or, conversely, whether a conflict will arise between heirs that will have to be resolved in court. A carefully drafted document can turn a will from a potential source of disputes into a tool for predictable estate planning.

Ukrainian civil law is based on the principle of freedom of testation: the testator decides who will receive the estate and in what shares. They may leave everything to one person, distribute individual assets among several heirs, or consciously or unconsciously leave part of the estate outside the text of the will. At the same time, this freedom has limits: there are rules on the compulsory share for certain persons, as well as mandatory rules of intestate succession for assets not covered by the will.

If the testator has drawn up a will only for part of the assets (for example, an apartment and a deposit), the rest of the property is not lost or left “ownerless”. That part of the estate passes to the heirs by law in the order of priority. This creates a situation of mixed succession: one part is distributed according to the testator’s will, the other under the provisions of the Civil Code. In practice, beneficiaries under the will receive what is expressly provided in the document, while relatives who are entitled to inherit by law claim the remainder or a share in specific assets if the will is partially invalidated.

Formally, there is no need to distribute “everything down to the last item”, but an incomplete will creates additional risks. Heirs may interpret phrases such as “all my property” differently and argue whether it covers future assets and hidden debts. Competition may arise between heirs under the will and heirs by law for specific assets that the testator did not clearly address. It is often necessary to go to court to interpret the will: whether the testator intended to dispose of everything but did not manage to amend the document, or deliberately limited the disposition to part of the estate.

It is also important to remember the concept of the compulsory share. Even where a will provides in detail for the distribution of the entire estate among the chosen beneficiaries, the rights of minor children, adult disabled children, a disabled spouse and disabled parents cannot be ignored. They are entitled to a statutory share regardless of the wording of the will, and when calculating that share, all assets forming part of the estate are taken into account. Attempts to circumvent these guarantees through selective or overly formal wills usually result in a redistribution of shares by a notary or court.

From a practical perspective, the more precisely property and the order of its transfer are described, the less scope there is for conflict. A fuller list of assets reduces the risk of mixed succession and competition between different groups of heirs, facilitates the work of the notary and allows the estate to be administered without years of litigation. Best practice includes not only mentioning the main assets (real estate, accounts, business interests, securities, vehicles, valuables), but also specifying shares, establishing easements and rights of use, and setting out mechanisms in advance for resolving potential conflicts.

There are, however, situations in which leaving part of the estate “outside the text” is a conscious and justified choice. For example, the testator may wish to give the heirs more freedom to agree on a specific division; anticipate significant changes in the composition of the estate (a dynamic business, a start-up, investments) and not intend to update the will constantly; or expect that a certain circle of relatives will receive “reserve” assets under the general intestacy rules. In such cases, it is vital to have a clear idea of who will inherit these assets and in which order, and to accept that the final outcome may depend on the heirs’ agreements.

To minimise risks, it is advisable, before signing the will, to take stock of the assets and decide whether the will should cover all property (“all assets belonging to me at the time of my death”) or will require periodic amendments. It is useful to discuss with a notary in advance the compulsory share, the allocation of shares among heirs and the possibility of amending the document if there is a significant change in financial circumstances. The law does not require every single item to be distributed, but silence as to part of the estate automatically triggers the intestacy rules, which may or may not coincide with the testator’s wishes.

Thus, the testator is not obliged to describe each asset in detail, but the clearer the will, the less room there is for conflicts, misunderstandings and court disputes between heirs. Freedom of testation serves the interests of the property owner only when combined with an awareness of compulsory shares for certain relatives and an understanding of how the intestacy rules will apply to what is left “outside the text”.

Author – Svitlana Krutorohova, attorney at the law firm “Legal Company WINNER”.

If you have questions or difficulties with making a will, planning the distribution of your estate, protecting the rights of compulsory heirs or resolving disputes between heirs, contact our team of specialists for professional assistance.