Donated assets freed from inheritance: buyers do not risk restitution
Reform simplifying the circulation of donated goods definitively approved
At last, the circulation of donated assets that are alienated by the donee, when the donation proves to be detrimental to the legitimate share of an heir entitled to a legitimacy: this is what follows the final approval by the Chamber of Deputies of the simplification bill 2025 that had already been approved by the Senate.
The protection of the reserved share
The Civil Code necessarily reserves (i.e. without the possibility of exceptions) to certain close relatives of the de cuius (known as legitimaries or necessary heirs, namely the spouse, the civil partner, the descendants and, in the absence of the latter, the ascendants) a significant share of his or her estate, the so-called 'legitimacy', which the de cuius during his or her lifetime may not undermine either by making donations or by drafting a will in which the aforementioned relatives are pretermitted (i.e. forgotten) or even disinherited as a result of testamentary provisions attributing the inheritance to other persons.
Hitherto, if the legitimary who acted in reduction did not find the donee's assets sufficiently capacious to satisfy his right to obtain his legitimate share, and the donee had sold or otherwise disposed of the given property, the legitimate shareholder was entitled to bring an action (an 'action for restitution') against the natural or legal person who had become the owner of the donated property in order to have it returned or, alternatively, to be paid a sum of money equal to the amount required to satisfy the legitimate shareholder's claim to his or her inheritance.
The person who had become the owner of the property that had been the subject of a donation in the past suffered restitution even if he was completely unaware of the stipulation of the donation damaging the legitimacy. He had, indeed, recourse against the donee who had alienated the donated property, but his hope of recovering anything was practically nil if one considers that the prerequisite for an action for restitution was precisely that the legitimator had found the alienating donee's assets incapable of being returned.
For all these reasons, a donated property has hitherto been regarded by the market as scarcely marketable: whoever bought it ran the risk of becoming involved in ainheritance dispute between completely unrelated parties, even many years after the donation. The same situation for the bank that had registered a mortgage on a property that had been the object of a donation.

