From the Bench: Inheritance Law – Fairness in family feuds

A recent inheritance dispute between two sisters has brought to the fore the scope of Malta’s reserved portion (leġittima) rules, which protect children’s rights to a portion of their parents’ estate—regardless of what a will might say.

The case Frances Curmi v. Mary Jane Farrugia, decided by the Court of Appeal on 7th April 2025 (App No 23/2015/3 BS), also illustrated how refusing an early settlement can have costly consequences, even when a legal claim is ultimately upheld.

At issue was not just how much one sister—the plaintiff—was entitled to under the Civil Code’s provisions on leġittima, but whether she was justified in rejecting a significantly higher offer made by the defendant before the case went to court.

The dispute arose following the death of the parties’ mother in 2014. A will from 2004 named both sisters as heirs, but with the defendant receiving a larger share.

The plaintiff claimed the defendant had also benefited disproportionately from gifts made during their mother’s lifetime, leaving her with less than her legally guaranteed portion. She therefore renounced her inheritance and claimed her leġittima.

The First Court found in her favour, awarding the plaintiff just under €75,000 as her rightful share, along with 8% interest per annum dating back to 2014—amounting to nearly €54,000 in additional compensation. The court also ordered the defendant to bear the legal costs. Both parties appealed.

A pre-litigation offer rejected

On appeal, the defendant argued that interest and legal costs were unjustified. She had offered the plaintiff €135,000 prior to the proceedings—a sum well above the final amount awarded—and had deposited this amount in court after it was refused.

The plaintiff, meanwhile, maintained that the estate had been undervalued. She argued that one property should now be appraised at a higher market value following the termination of a lease in 2023. She also sought to rely on more recent property prices from 2022 to revise the calculation of her share.

The Court of Appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Judges Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul, handed down its decision on 7 April 2025.

Estate valuation fixed at time of death

The Court agreed with the plaintiff that the First Court had made an arithmetical error, undervaluing the estate by around €30,000. As a result, the plaintiff’s leġittima was revised to €79,637.59.

However, the remainder of her appeal was dismissed. The court reaffirmed a well-settled principle in Maltese succession law: the value of an estate is fixed at the time of death. In this case, that meant June 2014.

The leġittima is calculated on that basis—not on the value of the estate at the time of judgment or in light of subsequent changes in market conditions.

This approach, the court noted, ensures predictability, fairness, and avoids reopening claims every time property prices fluctuate.

So while the plaintiff sought to revalue a property that had since become vacant, the Court of Appeal held that its status at the time of death was determinative.

Interest denied, costs reassigned

The more significant aspect of the judgment concerned the court’s decision to strike out the interest award entirely. Relying on Article 615 of the Civil Code, which gives the courts discretion to withhold interest where justified, the judges concluded that the plaintiff’s rejection of the €135,000 offer—made well before litigation began—rendered the interest claim unreasonable.

In the court’s view, the defendant had acted in good faith by making a serious offer and depositing the funds. The final sum awarded to the plaintiff was far lower than the amount she had been offered. On that basis, the Court of Appeal also reversed the First Court’s ruling on legal costs, ordering the plaintiff to bear them.

A reminder on reasonableness

This judgment serves as a reminder that the right to a reserved portion under Maltese law is intended to safeguard fairness—not to provide an avenue for speculative claims. While the court upheld the plaintiff’s entitlement to her leġittima, her decision to pursue litigation in the face of a favourable offer ultimately left her worse off.

In inheritance matters, asserting one’s legal rights is both legitimate and protected by law. This judgment nevertheless highlights that when a reasonable offer is refused and proceedings are prolonged unnecessarily, the court may be less willing to award interest or decide to shift the burden of costs—particularly when the litigation fails to achieve a better outcome than what was already on the table.

This judgment is final and cannot be appealed further.

Dr Arthur Azzopardi, is managing partner, and  Michaela Sciberras paralegal at at AB&A Advocates.