The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims amended a ruling of the Court of First Instance, which rejected a lawsuit brought by a man against 5 of his sons and their mother, in which he demanded to return a gift he had given them 23 years ago. Proving the appellant’s reversal of what he gave to his children, from the first to the fifth, and rejecting all other requests.
A man filed a lawsuit against 5 of his sons and their mother, his “ex-wife”, in which he demanded a ruling to nullify the gifts and to refer them to the number of 7,400 trading shares, and to oblige the defendants to return them to him with their profits or cash value, re-register and register them in his name, and nullify any sale, mortgage, benefit or Other actions and returning the situation to what it was, indicating that he had bought these shares about 23 years ago, and fictitiously recorded them for his children “from the first to the fifth” who were young, as well as the sixth defendant who was his wife at that time, and he married After that, he got another one, and he had two children from her, and he was referred to the pension, he grew old, debts burdened him and he needed to provide for the means of living, and his children did not help him, so that there would be no fraud in the inheritance, and the necessity of settlement between wives and children.
While the defendants demanded that the case be dismissed, due to the lack of evidence of fictitiousness and the absence of justifications for retracting the gift, due to the arrest and possession of the gift, and their lack of consent to return, and due to the existence of a marital impediment to the defendant – the sixth respondent – who was the wife of the appellant at the time of the gift, and for an increase in the gifted property. Of importance that increases its value, in addition to the fact that the new wife and two children were after the gift, so inequality is not a reason for reversal.
The Court of First Instance decided to reject the case and obligate the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses, and based its ruling on the lack of evidence of sham and the existence of an impediment to marriage, and that the condition of inequality between wives and children is the time of the gift and not after it, in addition to that there is no evidence of the plaintiff’s inability to have a pension, as The documents submitted by the plaintiff are not up to date with the date of the lawsuit, and it cannot be ascertained from them as to his insolvency.
The plaintiff did not accept the verdict, and appealed against it, claiming it was wrong in applying the law, shortcomings in causation, corruption of reasoning, and violation of the evidence established by the documents, while the appellants gave the same answer and demanded that the appeal be rejected.
For its part, the Court of Appeal clarified, in the merits of its ruling, that according to the Civil Transactions Law, it is considered an impediment to recourse to the gift whether the gift was from one of the spouses to the other or the one with a forbidden kinship unless it resulted in a trade-off between them without justification, noting that the appellant had He gave his ex-wife her own shares when the appellant was her sixth child, his wife at that time, and the aforementioned impediment was realized, and this impediment does not preclude what happened after that from the divorce between them, just as the appellant’s marriage to another was later than the time of the gift so that it is said that there is a trade-off Therefore, the case is rejected for the sixth respondent.
Regarding the appellant’s gift to his children, “the respondents from the first to the fifth,” the court indicated that regardless of the statement of inequality between them and the next two children on gifts or other justifications, the father has the right, according to the Civil Transactions Law, to recover from his son what he gave to his son, Provided that the impediment to the change of the donated money or the disposal of the donated money in a way that takes it out of his possession is not realized, or if a financial transaction occurred with the donated due to the gift and the return of the gift would harm the gifted or third parties, or if a frightening illness occurred to the donor or to the donor after The gift is granted, unless his illness resolves, and each parent returns his right to take back what he gave his son.
From the sum of the above, the court concluded that the appellant’s right to recover the shares he gave to his children is a right established by law as long as there is nothing to forfeit it. up to the fifth of the shares donated to each of them, and by rejecting the other requests, and obligating the convicts to pay the appropriate expenses.
#shares #traded. #man #demands #retraction #gift #gave #sons #years