An heiress had to go to court to withdraw just over eight thousand euros that belonged to her mother’s inheritance, despite having already submitted the inheritance tax payment required by law. The bank kept the accounts blocked, alleging a lack of documentation and a possible risk of liability before the Spanish tax administration, but the Court has now ruled that the retention was unjustified.
The decision was made by the Lugo Provincial Hearing, in Spain, which confirmed the conviction of the Abanca bank to hand over 8,160.19 euros to the heiress, plus interest, as it understood that the institution unduly retained the funds even after the Inheritance and Donation Tax payment had been presented. The case was publicized by the Spanish website Noticias Trabajo, specialized in legal and labor matters, which followed the legal process.
Accounts blocked despite the settlement presented
According to what appears in the process, the woman was not only the heir but also the indistinct co-holder of her deceased mother’s bank accounts. After his death, he presented the required documentation and proved that he had submitted the tax assessment, and, in the file, it appeared as a settlement without additional payment.
Even so, the bank refused to release the amounts in the accounts, citing an alleged lack of additional documentation and the risk of being held subsidiarily liable by Hacienda. According to the same source, the entity did not specifically clarify which documents were missing, nor what amounts were possibly at stake.
Faced with the refusal, the heiress went to court, claiming that the freezing of the accounts was unjustified and prevented her from having money to which she was legally entitled.
Court sets limits on banks’ activities
The Court of First Instance of Chantada ruled in favor of the heiress and ordered the bank to pay the amount claimed, with interest. The decision was later confirmed by the Lugo Provincial Hearing, which highlighted that banking entities cannot withhold amounts in a generic way without clear reasons.
According to the same source, the judges remember that the legislation allows banks to retain balances in certain cases, namely under the Inheritance Tax Law and its regulations. However, this retention must be duly justified, proportionate and clearly communicated to the customer.
In the specific case, the court considered it proven that the tax assessment presented existed and that there was no evidence that the bank had formally requested any other document. Therefore, it concluded that the retention of funds lacked a legal basis.
Lack of clarity penalized the heiress
The court decision was particularly critical in relation to the bank’s actions, pointing out ambiguity and lack of communication as factors that generated legal uncertainty. According to the sentence cited by Noticias Trabajo, the institution did not objectively explain the reasons for the refusal nor did it indicate the steps necessary to unblock the accounts.
For the court, this stance violated the heiress’ right to dispose of the funds, as she had already fulfilled the required tax obligations.
What changes for similar situations
Although the case concerns Spanish legislation, the decision reinforces a common principle in European legal systems: banks have verification duties in succession processes, but these duties do not give them carte blanche to block values without a clear basis.
The sentence recalls that the risk of tax liability cannot be invoked in an abstract or disproportionate way, especially when the heir demonstrates that he has regularized the situation with the tax administration. The bank was therefore ordered to pay 8,160.19 euros to the heiress, plus interest. The decision was not final at the time and allowed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
According to , this case can serve as a reference for other heirs who face similar obstacles, showing that the courts can stop excessive banking practices when they do not find legal support.
And in Portugal?
In Portugal, the actions of banks in inheritance situations are framed by clear rules but, in practice, many blocks and refusals occur because three different plans are mixed: who is entitled to withdraw, what part of the balance belongs to the deceased (in accounts with several owners) and what remains to be fulfilled before the Finance Department.
When an account holder dies, access to money does not just depend on whether or not the bank “wants to” release funds. First of all, the head of the couple (or whoever represents the heirs) must communicate the death and present basic documentation, such as the death certificate, qualification of heirs and identification of the deceased and the heirs. At the same time, it is common to ask the bank for a statement showing the balance at the date of death, for tax purposes.
Then, there is a tax rule that tends to be behind most blockages: the Stamp Duty Code determines that no entity can authorize the withdrawal of deposits and other values that are subject to free transfer (such as an inheritance), without proof of tax paid or, if there is an exemption, without proof of compliance with the declaratory obligation. In other words: even when there is an exemption, the critical point may be the *declaration/participation to Finance.
This participation is provided for in the Stamp Duty Code itself: the head of the couple (and the beneficiary, when applicable) is obliged to participate in the death/transmission and, as a rule, the participation must be presented by the end of the 3rd month following the birth of the tax obligation.
Once the essential formalities have been completed (legitimacy + tax/declarative proof), the bank must release the funds that were held captive, without dragging out the process due to inertia. Still, there is no single legal deadline for unblocking: when there are delays, the safest way to avoid “comings and goings” is to ask the bank, in writing, for a list of what is missing and on what basis.
And what happens when the bank fails? Here it is important to avoid myths: jurisprudence does not all follow the same direction. There are decisions that consider the bank’s refusal to be legitimate when there is a lack of fiscal/declarative proof, and there are decisions that condemn banks when they block/pay in a legally incorrect way, especially in collective and solidarity accounts, where the bank cannot replace the courts in “deciding” internal conflicts over the ownership of the money.
Also read:
