Supreme Court rules lease extension by heirs is not inheritance acceptance

The Supreme Court ruled on May 8 that heirs who extend an existing lease agreement do not automatically accept full liability for the deceased's debts through that act.

The decision centered on whether signing a lease extension counts as disposing of inherited property, which under Civil Article 1026 forces an heir to be deemed to have made a simple acceptance. The court found that extending a lease under the same conditions as the original contract is merely an act of managing the estate, not disposing of it.

In the case reviewed (2025Da220329), a tenant had paid a deposit to a landlord who subsequently died. The landlord's heirs signed a new contract extending the lease term to help the tenant renew their housing loan. When the tenant later sued for the return of the deposit, the heirs argued they had only accepted the inheritance with limited liability.

The lower court had previously ruled that the extension constituted a disposition of property. The Supreme Court overturned this finding, noting the contract stated the heirs were inheriting existing obligations.

Justices emphasized that when a contract imposes significant responsibilities, its terms must be interpreted strictly based on the true intent of the parties. They concluded the heirs acted to preserve the value of the leased property and assist the tenant, fulfilling their duty to manage the estate under Civil Article 1022.