Legal issues The master is invited, and the legal question is turned to the great god

First of all, if the niece is over 16 years old, the will may be considered valid, but if the niece is not yet 16 years old, the will will is invalid. According to the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Inheritance Law of the People's Republic of China, a will made by an incapacitated person or a person with limited capacity is invalid.

After the will is invalid, it enters the stage of legal succession.

According to the legal order of succession, the child's mother is the heir in the first order, and the child's aunt is not even in the second order. But our country inherits the law.

Ten. Article 3 and 14 provide for this situation accordingly.

Article 13: The share of inheritance inherited by heirs in the same order shall generally be equal. Heirs who lack the ability to work who have special difficulties in life shall be taken care of when distributing the inheritance. Heirs who have fulfilled the main obligation to support the decedent or who live with the decedent may receive more than one share of the inheritance when the inheritance is distributed.

If an heir who has the ability and the capacity to support does not fulfill his obligation to support, the inheritance shall be distributed without or less. Where the heirs agree through consultation, it may also be unequal.

Article 14 Appropriate inheritance may be distributed to persons other than heirs who lack the ability to work and have no livelihood who rely on the support of the decedent, or who do not support the deceased more than the heirs.

In other words, the child's mother can give her less or no inheritance because she has not fulfilled her maintenance obligations, and the child's aunt, although she is not the legal heir, can share more of the property because she has fulfilled the main maintenance obligations.

Void! It should be inherited by her aunt.

Why doesn't his wife have the right to inherit?

50% should be for his wife.

Article 22 of the Adoption Law: A will made by a person who is incapacitated or has limited capacity is invalid. Because the daughter is underage and is a person with limited capacity, the will is invalid!

However, according to Article 23 of the Adoption Law, from the date of establishment of the adoption relationship, the relationship of power and obligation between the adoptive parents and the adoptive child shall be governed by the provisions of the law on the relationship between parents and children. So the aunt has the right to inherit the estate.

Aunt! Because his parents divorced before his father's death, his mother had already received her fair share of the property. As a result, the mother is legally obliged only to provide for child support.

without any inheritance. and his aunt as the second guardian. Her estate should be inherited.

During the investigation of a case, the recusal of the responsible person of a public security organ at the county level or above is to be decided by the public security organ at the level above (erroneous).

The reason is that this question refers to the period of investigation of the case, and it is obvious that the handling of criminal cases by public security organs rather than administrative cases by public security organs is of course subject to the provisions of the "Provisions on Procedures for the Handling of Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs". Therefore, according to article 28 of the "Provisions on the Procedures for the Handling of Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs", the recusal of the responsible person of a public security organ at or above the county level shall be decided by the procuratorial committee of the people's procuratorate at the same level.

Therefore, the conclusion that "during the investigation of a case, the recusal of the responsible person of a public security organ at or above the county level shall be decided by the public security organ at the next higher level" is erroneous.

One is the recusal system for administrative cases.

The other is the recusal system for criminal cases.

The nature of the case is different, so the procedure for recusal is different, and it is normal because it is an investigation, so it should be decided by the procuratorate at the same level in accordance with the provisions on the procedures for criminal cases.

Yes, one is the recusal of administrative cases and the other is the recusal of criminal cases.

Wrong. The Criminal Procedure Law also stipulates that the recusal of investigators of a public security organ shall be decided by the responsible person of the public security organ, and the recusal of the responsible person of the public security organ shall be decided by the inspection committee of the people's procuratorate at the same level.

Hello: 1. French Party D can file an infringement lawsuit against French Party C and China Party B, and the infringement lawsuit filed by French Party D against China Party B is only the part of the patent registered in China, and for the lawsuit filed against French Party C, it can claim compensation on the grounds that the two patent rights registered in France are the subject matter of infringement.

2. French Party C may transfer the guarantee liability of intellectual property rights to Chinese Party B. The reason is that China Party B has made an obligation to sell the seller, and the intellectual property rights of the goods sold under guarantee shall not be regarded as infringing products in the buyer's location.

Of course, this view is based on the fact that the principal place of operation of the French party C in the title is France.

For details, see Article 42 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, which stipulates the seller's intellectual property security for the goods and its limitations. Article 42 of the Convention provides:

1) The goods delivered by the seller must be goods in which a third party cannot claim any rights or claims under industrial or other intellectual property rights, to the extent that the seller knew or could not have been unaware at the time of the conclusion of the contract and that such rights or claims are based on industrial or other intellectual property rights under the laws of the following States: (a) if the parties presuppose at the time of the conclusion of the contract that the goods will be resold or otherwise used in the territory of a State, in accordance with the law of the country in whose territory the goods are to be resold or otherwise used; or (b) in any other case, under the laws of the country in which Buyer has its place of business. (2) The obligations of the seller in the preceding paragraph shall not apply in the following cases:

a) the buyer knew or could not have been unaware of the right or claim at the time of the conclusion of the contract; or (b) the right or claim arises because Seller is subject to technical drawings, patterns, programs or other specifications provided by Buyer.

3. Chinese Party B may transfer part of the responsibility for the intellectual property guarantee liability in ** to Party A of the United States. Specifically, the goods sold by US A to China and B infringed on the patented technology enjoyed by French D in China. For the part that is no longer patented in China, Party A of the United States is not liable.

The lawyer has the following advice on your questions:

First of all, the law stipulates that the enforcement of a judgment must ensure the basic living conditions of the person subject to enforcement. Therefore, depending on what you said, this property should be very expensive, and it has exceeded the basic living conditions of ordinary people, so the court will seize it, so as to restrict the debtor from transferring the property, so as to better protect the interests of creditors.

Second, after the court seals up, an auction is generally held, and the purchase price is used to repay the creditor, and the excess part is returned to the debtor.

Third, the debtor can enter into an enforcement settlement agreement with the creditor. In this way, the court will release the seizure of the house, and if the parties agree and then repent, then continue the execution of the judgment.

1. If the debtor only has one house and the house only reaches the minimum per capita living area in the local area, the court will not auction it, and the purpose of the seizure is only to restrict the debtor from transferring property.

2. If the debtor and the creditor reach a settlement, they can go to the court and submit the settlement agreement to the court, and the court will lift the seizure measures on the house, and the execution will be terminated, and the execution will not continue.

If it can't be sealed, it can't be auctioned. It is necessary to ensure the basic livelihood security of the debtor and his family.

If the judgment has already been made, it is impossible to revoke the judgment, but it is still possible to apply for revocation of enforcement. You can settle the debts for which the judgment is valid, forgive or extend or installment.

Finally, I will tell you that he has no other money, and if he lives in a house, he is not allowed to seize it. Auctions are not allowed, this court is really unreliable, no wonder so many people are angry at the court.

If the debtor only has this house for his own use, it cannot be forcibly auctioned.

However, if the debtor has other fixed income, such as salary, etc., it can be deducted on a monthly basis, and only the necessary living expenses can be retained until the implementation is completed. Of course, this also requires you to provide clues before the court can enforce it.

If the debtor only has one house and the area of the house is not large, the general court will not enforce it. "Can the debtor ask for a suspension of the settlement, the explicit judgment, and the unsealing of the house? "Can't! The unsealing is applied for by the creditor.