On January 23, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione, Second Civil Section) issued decision no. 1632, a ruling that clarifies key aspects of cross-border successions, or inheritance, disputes.
The case involved a contested will, questions of mental capacity, the sale of inherited property, and – most importantly – the complex intersection of Italian and foreign succession law.
This article provides an accessible overview of the case, explains the Court’s reasoning, and highlights broader lessons for families with international ties.
The Background: A Disputed Will and Property in Tuscany
The story begins in 1994 with the death of H.H., an Australian citizen who had been residing in Italy. Just one month before her passing, she signed a will naming her partner, I.I., as the sole heir of all her assets located in Italy. The will also included a request that I.I. care for their three children, including the plaintiff in this case, A.A.
Shortly after the succession proceedings commenced, questions emerged. The children argued that their mother had been gravely ill and under heavy medication at the time the will was executed, rendering her incapable of making a valid testamentary disposition. They also challenged subsequent transactions: I.I. had sold a significant property in Tuscany to a real estate company at what they considered a suspiciously low price.
In 2010, one of the children, A.A., filed a lawsuit in Florence seeking to annul the will, declare the sale ineffective, and recover at least his reserved share of the inheritance under Italian law (the so-called legittima). Alternatively, he sought damages from the appointed heir, the purchasing company, and even the notary who had drafted the relevant deeds.
The Lower Courts: No Grounds to Overturn the Will
Both the trial court and the Florence Court of Appeal rejected A.A.’s claims.
- Testatrix’s Capacity
Medical records from the relevant period showed that H.H. was conscious and capable of making decisions, despite her illness. The courts concluded that she was mentally competent at the time she executed the will. - Applicable Law
As H.H. was an Australian citizen, the courts applied Australian succession law. Under the Italian conflict-of-law rules in force at the time (i.e. prior to the enactment of Law No. 218/1995), the entire succession was governed by the decedent’s national law. Since Australian law does not recognize forced heirship rights comparable to those under Italian law, the children could not bring an action to reduce or challenge the testamentary dispositions. - Sale of the Property
The courts found no irregularities in the sale of the Tuscan property. The real estate company and the notary were deemed to have acted in good faith and were not held liable. - Outcome
In short, the children were left without legal remedies under both succession and tort law.
The Appeal to the Supreme Court
A.A. challenged the lower courts’ rulings before the Supreme Court, raising six arguments. The most significant issue concerned the law applicable to inheritance.
Timing played a crucial role. In 1995, Italy reformed its private international law with Law No. 218. Article 46 of that law provides that “succession is governed by the national law of the deceased at the time of death”. However, the reform also introduced the possibility of renvoi – that is, the referral of a legal matter from one jurisdiction to another.
In practice, if the applicable foreign law – such as Australian law in this case – refers the matter back to the law of the country where the property is located – in our case, Italy, since the asset is situated there – Italian law will then apply to the succession. This mechanism can be decisive, as Italian law guarantees forced heirship rights (legittima) to children and other close relatives.
A.A. contended that, since his lawsuit was filed after the 1995 reform – the new rules under Law 218/1995 should apply. Under this framework, Australian law (as the national law of the deceased) would refer the matter back to Italian law for immovable assets located in Italy. As a result, Italian forced heirship rules would apply to the inheritance, thus protecting his inheritance rights.
The Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court carefully examined each of the six grounds of appeal. Below is a summary of the arguments and the Court’s responses:
- Mental Capacity of the Testatrix
The Court confirmed the findings of the lower courts. Medical evidence showed that H.H. was lucid and mentally competent when she executed the will. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the validity of the testament on this point. - Applicable Law to the Succession (Key Issue)
Here, the Supreme Court sided with A.A. It held that the Florence Court of Appeal had erred by applying the pre-1995 conflict-of-law rules. Since the lawsuit was filed after 1995, the applicable framework was Law No. 218/1995. In addition, before the entry into force of this law, the issue had not yet been clearly settled, and the application of foreign succession law often led to uncertainty and inconsistent case law. - Liability of the Notary
The Court rejected the claims brought against the notary. It noted that even if the will reduced the inheritance rights of the children, this would not render the will null or unlawful. The notary had no duty to refuse the deed or anticipate future disputes. - Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ rulings on testamentary capacity and the notary’s conduct but overturned them on the crucial issue of the applicable law. The decision reopens the door for A.A. to assert his inheritance rights under Italian law.
The Outcome
The Supreme Court partially annulled the judgment of the Florence Court of Appeal and remanded the case to a different panel of the same court, instructing it to reconsider the inheritance claims in light of Italian law.
This means that the children may still obtain recognition of their reserved shares in the Tuscan property, despite their mother’s decision to leave her entire estate to her partner.
Why This Case Matters
This decision is important for several reasons:
1. Confirmation of Forced Heirship in Italy
The judgment reaffirms that Italian law strongly protects the rights of children and close relatives, even in international successions. When foreign law refers the matter back to Italian law, heirs can rely on their legittima – the statutory reserved share.
2. Renvoi Accepted
Italian courts must apply the renvoi mechanism in international inheritance cases. This often results in a split estate, where Italian law governs assets located in Italy and foreign law governs property located abroad.
3. No Automatic Liability for Notaries
The ruling also reassures notaries and good-faith purchasers that they are not automatically liable in future inheritance disputes, unless they have breached clear legal prohibitions.
Practical Lessons for Families with International Ties
For individuals and families with property or heirs in multiple countries, the ruling offers several practical takeaways:
- Plan Ahead
International successions are legally complex. A will that is valid in one country may not produce the same effects elsewhere. Advance planning with cross-border legal advice is essential to avoid future disputes.
- Understand Forced Heirship
In Italy, children, spouses, and sometimes parents are entitled to fixed shares of an estate. These forced heirship rights cannot be overridden by will. If you own property in Italy, these rules could be applied.
- Act Promptly
Legal remedies such as contesting a will or claiming a reserved share are time-barred. Once those deadlines expire, the estate is considered settled and claims are lost.
- Be Cautious with Low-Price Sales
Transactions that appear to deprive heirs of their rightful share may be challenged in court. However, litigation is complex and outcomes depend on which law applies to each part of the estate.
Conclusion
Italian Supreme Court Decision No. 1632 of January 23, 2025, underscores both the complexity of cross-border inheritance and the enduring strength of forced heirship protections in Italy. For the children of H.H., the ruling reopens the door to claim their reserved share of the Tuscan property. For families with international assets, it serves as a clear reminder that inheritance planning cannot stop at national borders: understanding which law applies – and when – is essential to protect both your wishes and your heirs’ rights.
It is important to note that Italian Law No. 218/1995, governing private international law, remains in force. However, for successions opened from August 17, 2015, EU Regulation No. 650/2012 now applies. While the Regulation does not apply directly to non-EU countries, and it governs cross-border successions between EU Member States (excluding Denmark and Ireland), it indirectly affects successions involving non-EU countries. This is because it establishes that the applicable law is generally that of the deceased’s habitual residence at the time of death – which could be a non-EU country.
In practice, this means that families with international ties must carefully consider the interaction between Italian law, EU regulations, and foreign laws to ensure inheritance rights are protected and potential disputes minimized.