Simulation in Contracts: Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Cassation, Sec. II, Ord. No. 23598 of 2024

The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 23598 of 2024 provides an interesting reflection on the topic of simulation in contracts and the right to reduce donations in favor of the heirs. The Court examined a case where an heir, B.B., challenged two sales agreements executed by the mother in favor of the brother A.A., arguing that these agreements actually concealed a donation.

The Context and the Decision of the Court of Appeal

The proceedings originated from B.B.'s request to declare two sales agreements null and void, claiming they were donations not formally valid. The Court of Appeal of Bologna, accepting the appeal, established the simulation and declared the contracts null due to a defect in form, as they had not been drafted in the presence of witnesses.

The heir is allowed to prove, in the role of a third party, the simulation of a sale made by the deceased through witnesses and presumptions.

The Court established that, in the event of a challenge by an heir, the latter acts as a third party and not as an heir, allowing for greater freedom of evidence. This aspect is crucial as it enables the heir to defend their rights without facing the evidentiary limitations applicable to the parties involved in the agreements.

Burden of Proof and Simulation

A central point of the decision is the burden of proof in cases of simulation. The Court clarified that in the case of simulation of a sales contract, it is the buyer who must prove the payment of the price. B.B. was therefore able to support their request with sufficient clues regarding the fictitious nature of the sales agreements, such as the family relationship and the absence of proof of payment.

  • The heir can act as a third party.
  • The burden of proving the payment of the price lies with the buyer.
  • Indicators of simulation: family relationship and payment statements.

The Implications of the Judgment

The judgment under review reaffirms established principles in the field of inheritance law and simulation, emphasizing the importance of protecting the rights of heirs. The decision of the Court of Cassation aligns with previous jurisprudence, stating that in the absence of counter-declarations, the proof of simulation must be based on indications and presumptions.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that statements contained in notarial acts, which attest to the payment, are not sufficient to prove the actual payment of the price, as they can be considered mere declarations in favor of the buyer.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the judgment of the Court of Cassation, Sec. II, Ord. No. 23598 of 2024 represents an important intervention by the Court of Cassation regarding simulation in contracts and the protection of the rights of heirs. The decision clarifies the burden of proof and the rights of omitted heirs, thus providing greater protection for those who may be harmed by concealed property disposition acts.

Bianucci Law Firm