She Died Alone. Nine Relatives Fought Over Her Apartment. The Court Gave It to the State.

The house went to the Civil Affairs Bureau

Zhao’s house was in Changping. 101 square meters. Worth more than 4 million yuan.

After she died, the house was handed over to the Civil Affairs Bureau.

In June 2022, Zhao died. She was 41. She had lived alone in that house. Her parents had died before her. She had no spouse, no children, no siblings. Her paternal grandparents and maternal grandparents had died long before.

She had uncles, aunts, maternal uncles, maternal aunts. Nine people in total.

Nine people stood in court.

The plaintiffs were Zhao Mouhe and four others. They were Zhao’s paternal uncles and aunts. The defendants were Zhao’s maternal uncles and aunts, four people. They all told the judge they had provided support for Zhao. The plaintiffs asked to inherit the house and divide the bank deposits and insurance interests. The defendants proposed that the estate be divided at one-tenth for each plaintiff and one-eighth for each defendant.

The court established several facts.

Zhao had uremia. She could still care for herself. She could handle eating, drinking, and daily life on her own. She lived alone. When she had trouble, one uncle and a community worker helped her get to the hospital. That uncle’s surname was Zhao. He drove a taxi. He lived close to Zhao. He drove her to medical appointments multiple times. He took her abroad for holidays. In the medical records before Zhao’s death, his signature appeared as a close relative.

The other eight people had also helped Zhao. They assisted with medical visits multiple times. They visited on holidays.

The court also visited the neighborhood committee where Zhao had lived.

The judgment was this: the insurance rights and obligations and bank deposits were divided among the nine people. Zhao Mouhe, the taxi-driving uncle, inherited 20% of the rights and obligations under the two insurance contracts. The other eight each inherited 10%. Of the bank deposit of 4,222.92 yuan, Zhao Mouhe received 827.96 yuan. The other eight each received 424.37 yuan. Another 20.81 yuan in bank deposits went to Zhao Mouhe.

The house went to the state. The Changping District Civil Affairs Bureau of Beijing would manage it.

None of the nine appealed. The judgment took effect.

Why was the cash divided, but not the house?

Zhao’s paternal and maternal uncles and aunts were not her statutory heirs. Article 1127 of the Civil Code is clear: the first order is spouse, children, parents; the second order is siblings, grandparents, maternal and paternal grandparents. Uncles and aunts are the siblings of parents. They are collateral blood relatives. They are not on that list.

Zhao had no siblings. So the niece and nephew subrogation rule added in Article 1128, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code had no premise for application here. Subrogation requires that the deceased had siblings, and that those siblings died before the deceased, so that their children may inherit in their place. Zhao did not even have siblings.

The nine people could receive money under another law. Article 1131 of the Civil Code: “A person who is not an heir but depended on the deceased for support, or a person who is not an heir but provided relatively more support to the deceased, may be given an appropriate share of the estate.”

This is the discretionary estate allocation system.

The court examined the four words “provided relatively more support” closely. The judge said that relatives by blood have a kinship relationship with Zhao. Ordinary visits to relatives cannot automatically be treated as support. The court had to look at what concrete contribution they made to Zhao’s life, and whether it went beyond ordinary family visits.

Zhao Mouhe, the taxi-driving uncle, was found to have provided the most support. He drove Zhao to medical appointments multiple times. He took her abroad. His signature was on the medical records. These acts were more concrete and more sustained than ordinary relatives’ interactions.

The court still found that Zhao had lived alone, could care for herself, and had not reached a level where she depended entirely on any one relative for support.

So the scope of discretionary allocation was limited to the “appropriate” portion corresponding to the support provided. Cash and insurance, more than 1.1 million yuan, were divided among the nine. The house, more than 4 million yuan, as the main estate, went to the state because the relatives’ support had not reached the corresponding level.

Article 1160 of the Civil Code: “Where no one inherits and no one is bequeathed, the estate goes to the state and is used for public welfare; if the deceased was a member of a collective ownership organization, it goes to that collective ownership organization.”

When the People’s Court Case Database included this case, it wrote: where the deceased lived alone and had not reached a level of mainly relying on support providers, the main estate should be determined according to law to go to the state, and the remaining estate may be allocated to those who provided relatively more support to the deceased. Where there are multiple such persons, their shares should be determined by combining their respective degrees of care and support, the length of support, and the manner of support.

Zhao’s uncle received 20%. The other eight each received 10%. That ratio shows how the court weighed support against benefit.

The state did not compete with relatives. The house went to the state because no heir or legatee existed. The state takes over this uninherited property and uses it for public welfare. The Civil Affairs Bureau, as estate administrator, takes over the house.

Zhao was 41. Living alone. Ill. No spouse, no children, no siblings. She is not an isolated case.

The number of people living alone is growing. One person lives alone and sees a doctor alone. When risk comes, there is no one else in the room. When such a person dies, how the estate is handled will keep becoming a legal question.

The law offers several tools. Statutory inheritance, testamentary inheritance, bequests, bequest-for-support agreements, discretionary estate allocation, and uninherited estate going to the state or collective. Most of these tools share one premise: the expression of personal will.

If Zhao had made a will leaving the house to the uncle who drove her to medical appointments, the result would have been different. If she had signed a bequest-for-support agreement with someone willing to care for her, agreeing on support during life and burial after death, the result would have been different. She could also have designated a guardian by agreement and arranged an estate administrator.

She made none of these arrangements. The law could only apply the default rule.

That 101-square-meter house is now managed by the Changping District Civil Affairs Bureau. The door is locked. The key is in someone else’s hand.

Zhao lived there alone. After she died, nine relatives argued over it in court. In the end, it went to a place she had never designated.