Wang Jianhua, et al. v. Wang Rufan
(Case of Inheritance Dispute)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Wang Jianhua, male, 48-year-old, employee, resides at Hong Kong.@#
Plaintiff: Wang Qianghua, male, 52-year-old, employee, resides at Shanghai.@#
Plaintiff: Wang Qihua, female, 49-year-old, teacher, resides at Shanghai.@#
Plaintiff: Wang Shunhua, female, 46-year-old, employee, resides at Shanghai.@#
Plaintiff: Wang Youhua, female, 43-year-old, jobless, resides at Hong Kong.@#
Defendant: Wang Rufan, female, 58-year-old, retired teacher, resides at Shenzhen.@#
Third Party: Wang Yin, female, 35-year-old, teacher, resides at Hong Kong.@#
For inheritance dispute, Wang Jianghua, Wang Qianghua, Wang Qihua, Wang Shunhua and Wang Youhua, the plaintiffs, brought a lawsuit to Nanshan District People's Court of Shenzhen Municipality, Guangdong Province against Wang Rufan, the defendant, and Wang Yin, the third party.@#
The plaintiffs claimed that: Wang Rufan got married with Wang Jianing, the decedent, because she was interested in Wang Jianing's property. After they got married, Wang Rufan abused the decedent time and time again. She even did not take him to hospital when he was sick, but left him in pain. She did not notify Wang Jianhua until Wang Jianing became terminally ill. Wang Jianhua took the decedent to Hong Kong for hospitalization, at Wang Jianhua's place, Wang Rufan got the key to the decedent's safe box which was kept in Hong Kong, and then she took away the cash and share certificate of the decedent from the safe box. After the demise of the decedent, Wang Rufan either possessed or leased the four premises purchased by the decedent before they got married. She ignored the plaintiffs' effort to discuss about inheritance issues with her. It seems that she is determined to make a monopoly of the property which shall belong to the plaintiffs according to law. So the plaintiffs petition the court to decide that the defendant shall be deprived of the right of inheritance, all legacy as well as the proceeds from leasing the decedent's estates shall be succeeded by the plaintiffs, and the defendant shall pay the legal cost of this case.@#
．．．．．．

王健华等五人诉王汝范继承纠纷案@#
@#
原告：王健华，男，４８岁，职员，居住香港。@#
原告：王强华，男，５２岁，职工，居住上海。@#
原告：王绮华，女，４９岁，教师，居住上海。@#
原告：王舜华，女，４６岁，职工，居住上海。@#
原告：王友华，女，４３岁，无业，居住香港。@#
被告：王汝范，女５８岁，离休教师，居住深圳。@#
第三人：王音，女，３５岁，教师，居住香港。@#
原告王健华、王强华、王绮华、王舜华、王友华因与被告王汝范和第三人王音发生继承纠纷，向广东省深圳市南山区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称：被告王汝范因看中被继承人王家宁的财产而与其结婚。婚后，被告经常虐待被继承人。被继承人生病时也不送医院治疗，任其在家中忍受痛苦。直至被继承人病危时，被告才通知原告王健华。当王健华接被继承人去香港治疗时，被告趁机从王健华处拿走被继承人存放在香港的保险箱上的钥匙，取走被继承人的现金、股票。在被继承人死亡后，被告又将被继承人婚前购置的４处房产占用或出租。当原告与其协商继承之事时，被告不予理睬，准备长期独占原告应得之财产。请求法院依法判令被告丧失其继承权，被继承人的全部遗产以及被告出租遗产房屋所得之收益应由原告继承，被告承担本案诉讼费。@#
被告及第三人辩称：原告讼争之财产中，有被继承人王家宁生前赠与被告以及王家宁和第三人共同出资购置的房产，这部分财产不是王家宁的遗产。另外，王家宁在与被告结婚后，才归还婚前购房贷款，应视为用夫妻共同财产归还了个人贷款，应当在遗产中扣还。被告不反对原告作为第一顺序继承人继承王家宁的遗产。但是，各原告均具有赡养能力与条件，长期以来对王家宁没有承担过任何赡养义务，因此继承遗产时应当不分或少分。被告与王家宁登记结婚，在王家宁晚年与其共同生活，相依为命，相敬如宾，不仅应作为第一顺序继承人继承王家宁的遗产，依法还应多分。在王家宁晚年陷于孤独和潦倒之时，只有第三人出于人道主义每月给王家宁５００元港币作为生活费。被告与王家宁结婚后，第三人及其弟王鸣作为王家宁的继子女，承担了对王家宁的赡养义务，因此均应作为第一顺序继承人继承遗产。@#
深圳市南山区人民法院经审理查明：原告王健华、王强华、王绮华、王舜华、王友华均系被继承人王家宁与前妻的婚生子女。１９８９年７月，王家宁与被告王汝范再婚，婚后无子女。第三人王音及其弟王鸣，均是王汝范与前夫的婚生子女。王音于１９８６年７月迁至香港定居，王鸣于１９８９年２月去日本留学。１９９１年６月１日，王家宁在香港病故，因未留遗嘱，原告为与被告为分割遗产发生纠纷，诉至法院。@#
被继承人王家宁于１９８５年购买深圳市建设路德兴大厦第二座１６楼Ｄ单元房产一套，现价值港币２１０９０３元。１９８７年７月，王家宁购买深圳市人民南路海丰苑衡山阁第一栋１５楼Ｈ单元房产一套，现价值港币３１６０３１元，同年７月３０日把该房产一半产权通过公证赠与被告王汝范。１９８８年４月，王家宁与第三人王音共同贷款购买深圳市华侨城东方花园别墅第一座二楼Ｂ单元房产一套，现价值港币１０１０９０７元，同时还购买东方花园别墅第二座二楼Ｅ单元房产一套，现价值港币１０３５１４６元，买房时贷款港币６０万元，已由王家宁和王音共同偿还。@#
．．．．．．