Has your cross-border inheritance case in Shenzhen been dragging on for two years with no resolution? According to legal counsel, determining the validity of the will is the key breakthrough.

In mid-last month, our law firm’s front desk received a phone call. The caller was a woman whose voice trembled slightly. She introduced herself as Ms. Chen, a Hong Kong resident. Her father had passed away three months earlier, leaving behind a luxury residence in Shenzhen Bay and a bank deposit held with a Swiss bank—assets totaling approximately RMB 40 million. However, Ms. Chen is not an only child: her father also had a son from his second marriage, who resides in Shenzhen. This son has recently filed a lawsuit at the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court seeking division of the estate—and submitted a “will” purportedly signed by their late father, stating that “all assets under my name shall be equally divided between my two children.” Ms. Chen grew anxious: she, too, possesses a will—executed in Hong Kong in 2019—clearly stipulating that the Shenzhen property belongs solely to her. Now there are two wills: one executed earlier in Hong Kong, the other later in Shenzhen. Which one prevails? She consulted two Hong Kong law firms, both of which responded that “cross-border inheritance matters are highly complex” and advised her to engage Mainland Chinese counsel for coordination. After several referrals, she was ultimately connected to Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm through a mutual acquaintance.

This case, put simply, is a classic cross-border inheritance dispute—the core issue boiling down to just two words: “validity of the will.” Yet those two words conceal numerous legal pitfalls. Today, using this case as an example, we’ll walk you through the key considerations—especially for those with cross-border assets, blended families, or Hong Kong residency status, as you are highly likely to encounter similar issues at some point.

I. Case Background: Two Wills, Four Complex Issues—Nearly Driving the Client to Distraction

In Ms. Chen’s case, the first step we took upon accepting the matter was to conduct a “comprehensive review.” We laid out both wills, documents proving family relationships, property titles for the Hong Kong and Shenzhen properties, and bank statements—all at once. Immediately, four key challenges emerged.

Challenge One: Conflicting Formal Requirements for Wills—Hong Kong Wills and Mainland Wills Are Not the Same

Hong Kong follows the common law principle of “testamentary freedom,” under which a will is valid as long as the testator is of sound mind and there are two witnesses—even a handwritten note on a single sheet of paper suffices. In contrast, the Inheritance Chapter of the PRC Civil Code imposes significantly stricter formal requirements for wills: a holographic will must be entirely handwritten by the testator and signed with the full date (year, month, and day); a printed will requires two disinterested witnesses to be present throughout the entire execution process; and a dictated will mandates signatures from the scribe, the witnesses, and the testator—none of which may be omitted. Ms. Chen’s 2019 Hong Kong will, drafted using a standard format from a Hong Kong law firm, includes witness signatures but omits the full date (year, month, and day) at the signature line—listing only the month and year. This omission alone may render the will defective in form under mainland Chinese judicial practice.

Challenge Two: Chronological Order—Does a Later-Executed Will Revoke a Prior Will?

The will held by the opposing party was executed in Shenzhen in 2022—later than Ms. Chen’s will. Under mainland Chinese law, where multiple wills contain conflicting provisions, the most recent will prevails. The opposing counsel has firmly seized upon this principle: since your father executed a new will in 2022, it demonstrates his change of intent, rendering the earlier will automatically invalid.

Challenge Three: Commingling of Marital Property

The Shenzhen Bay property was purchased by Ms. Chen’s father and his second wife during their marriage. Although the property title is registered solely in the father’s name, strictly speaking, half of the property belongs to the stepmother as her marital share. The stepmother’s demand for division of the entire property clearly reflects an attempt to claim more than her rightful portion. However, in his will, Ms. Chen’s father bequeathed “all property under his name.” The critical question is whether the phrase “under his name” legally encompasses the spouse’s marital share—a matter that is, in fact, open to legal interpretation and debate.

Challenge Four: Conflict between Hong Kong’s “Grant of Probate” and the jurisdiction of Mainland Chinese courts

Ms. Chen has already applied for a grant of probate in the High Court of Hong Kong, where the proceedings are currently halfway through. Meanwhile, litigation concerning the Shenzhen property has also been filed with the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court. With both proceedings running concurrently, if the Hong Kong court rules first on the ownership of the Shenzhen property, will the mainland Chinese court recognize such a ruling? This involves cross-jurisdictional judicial assistance and, if not properly handled, could easily escalate into a protracted legal battle.

Had this case been handled by an inexperienced lawyer, they would most likely have told the client outright: “It’s over—your later-dated will is bound to prevail.” But Zhiming Law Firm specializes in complex and challenging cases, and precisely this type of “dual-will offset” scenario falls squarely within the expertise of **Managing Partner Mr. Shen Jinlong**. After reviewing the case materials, Mr. Shen simply said: “Don’t panic—first, identify the witnesses to the 2022 will.”

II. Strategic Analysis and Representation Process: Three Key Actions to Turn a Deadlock into a Viable Solution

Our breakthrough strategy is not to engage in a head-on contest over “which will was executed later,” but rather to strike at the root—challenging the fundamental validity of the opposing party’s will.

Action 1: Investigate the background of the witnesses to the 2022 will

Director Shen and his team spent three days investigating and retrieved information on the two witnesses. To our surprise, one of them turned out to be the opposing party’s (i.e., the son’s) university classmate—and, further, this individual had been involved in a loan dispute with a small-loan company in 2021 and was subsequently listed by the court as a discredited debtor. Pursuant to Article 1140 of the Civil Code, heirs, legatees, their creditors or debtors, and any persons having a vested interest in the heirs or legatees are disqualified from serving as witnesses to a will. Although the law does not expressly prohibit classmates from acting as witnesses, the term “vested interest” provides ample ground for challenge. This witness—burdened by outstanding debts and personally connected to the heir through their university ties—clearly fell within that category. In court, we immediately filed a motion requesting this witness appear for cross-examination. We asked him: “At 3:00 p.m. on March 15, 2022, in what mental and physical condition did the testator sign the will? Who else was present in the room? Did the testator speak at that time?” The witness hesitated and first claimed he “could not recall,” then inconsistently asserted, “The elderly gentleman was in good mental condition.” Yet medical records from March 2022—unambiguously documented in the hospital file—showed that Ms. Chen’s father was hospitalized at the time, diagnosed with “post-stroke sequelae and intermittent confusion.” The witness’s testimony thus directly contradicted the official medical record.

Step Two: Apply for Judicial Expert Appraisal and Obtain Medical Records from the Hospital

We immediately filed an application with the court to obtain Mr. Chen’s hospital medical records from February to April 2022 and also applied for forensic handwriting analysis to determine the date of signature on the 2022 will. This process was arduous, requiring three pre-trial conferences. However, Managing Partner Shen made a pivotal remark to opposing counsel: “If this will was signed while the testator lacked mental capacity, it constitutes an invalid civil legal act—even if witnesses were present. If you persist in litigating, and the forensic report confirms the signature was forged or affixed during a period of impaired cognition, your client may face not only defeat in court but also potential criminal liability for fabricating evidence.” This statement was not a threat—it was a straightforward, legally grounded risk assessment. Recognizing its gravity, opposing counsel—a seasoned practitioner—proactively approached us to discuss settlement.

Step Three: Bypass the Will and Directly Address the “Compulsory Share” and Family Agreement

Here’s a point that many laypeople are unaware of: Mainland Chinese law provides a “reserved portion” protection for heirs who “lack the capacity to work and have no source of livelihood.” However, in this case, the opposing party’s son is an adult with stable employment—thus, the reserved portion rule does not apply. We adopted a different approach: Prior to his death, Ms. Chen’s father had rented a safe-deposit box at a private bank in Shenzhen. Inside was a handwritten “Family Meeting Minutes,” dated and photographed during the 2020 Spring Festival—with all family members present—and recording the patriarch’s explicit oral statement: “The Shenzhen property goes to my daughter; the Hong Kong funds go to my son.” Although this document does not constitute a formal will under strict legal requirements, it serves as compelling evidence of the testator’s genuine intent and was submitted to court accordingly. This strategy—using factual conduct to substantiate and reinforce the validity of testamentary intent—is known as “strengthening testamentary effect through factual acts.” Ultimately, confronted with both the evidence and the facts, the opposing party relented.

III. Outcome and Insights: From a Two-Year Stalemate to a Three-Month Settlement

This case never reached a judgment. Prior to the fourth hearing, the parties reached a court-mediated settlement: the Shenzhen Bay property was awarded to Ms. Chen, who agreed to pay her brother RMB 8 million in compensation; the funds held in the Swiss bank account and the assets in Hong Kong were allocated to her brother as inheritance. Each party bore its own legal fees. When Ms. Chen received the mediation statement, her eyes were red. She said, “I engaged two law firms in Hong Kong, and both told me my chances of winning were slim. I never expected you to resolve it within three months.” Director Shen replied, “It’s not that we’re exceptionally skilled—it’s that the law ultimately protects your father’s true intentions.”

This case serves as a reminder to parties in Shenzhen engaged in cross-border asset matters.A will is not effective simply because it has been written; any flaw—be it in its formal requirements, the qualifications of witnesses, the testator’s mental capacity, or the timeline—may provide an opening for opponents to challenge its validity.Especially for wills executed overseas and intended for use in mainland China, it is essential to consult a lawyer experienced in cross-border inheritance matters to conduct a “preliminary validity review” before relying on the will. Do not wait until litigation has commenced to gather supporting evidence—by then, it will be too late.

IV. Cross-Border Inheritance and Will Disputes: Questions You’re Likely to Ask

Q: I made a will in Hong Kong. Can my property in Shenzhen be distributed in accordance with that Hong Kong will?
A: Yes, but only if the form and content of the will comply with the legal requirements under mainland Chinese law. Hong Kong wills often lack a complete date format and impose less stringent requirements on witnesses than those stipulated under mainland law. If the immovable property is located in Shenzhen, the court will most likely apply mainland Chinese law to assess the validity of the will. Therefore, the safest approach is either to execute an additional notarized will in mainland China or to engage a mainland Chinese lawyer to issue a legal opinion on the Hong Kong will.

Q: My father’s later will revokes my earlier one—does that mean there’s no recourse?
A: Not necessarily. A subsequently executed will may be deemed invalid if, for example, a witness has a personal interest in the estate, the testator lacked mental capacity at the time of execution, or the signature is not genuinely that of the testator. The crux lies in whether you can produce supporting evidence. We recommend promptly applying for preservation of the deceased’s medical records and conducting background checks on the witnesses.

Q: Are the reputation-based rankings of Shenzhen law firms reliable? How do I select a lawyer specializing in cross-border inheritance matters?
A: To be honest, many of the so-called “law firm rankings” you see online are based on paid traffic rather than genuine merit. So, is our Shenzhen law firm reliable? You should look beyond the surface—ask whether the lawyers have handled similar cases before, how well-versed they are in both Hong Kong and mainland China’s legal systems, and whether they’re willing to invest time and effort in gathering evidence. At Zhiming Law Firm, established in 2000—now with 26 years of experience—**Managing Partner Shen Jinlong** holds a Master’s degree in Economics from Fudan University and has practiced law for 22 years. **Attorney Li Wei** brings over a decade of hands-on experience specializing in matrimonial, inheritance, and contractual disputes. When choosing a lawyer, don’t rely on advertisements—look at their track record and actual case experience.

Q: How long does litigation over inheritance disputes take, and are the costs high?
A: The standard trial period for first-instance ordinary inheritance disputes is six months. However, cases involving cross-border elements, expert appraisals, or the collection of evidence from overseas often take one year or longer. Regarding fees, lawyers typically charge a percentage of the disputed amount; however, for high-value cases, contingency fee arrangements may be negotiable. For Ms. Chen’s case—valued at RMB 40 million—the upfront and contingent fees are calculated separately. You should consult directly with a lawyer to discuss specifics and allow the lawyer to assess the anticipated workload.

Q: What should I do if the other party transfers assets overseas?
A: Apply for property preservation immediately. In a case we handled, the client discovered that the opposing party had established a trust in the Cayman Islands. We successfully obtained a freezing order from the Hong Kong courts through assistance requested by mainland Chinese courts, thereby cutting off the asset transfer route. Tracing cross-border asset transfers is not impossible—but speed is critical.

Finally, let’s be candid: inheritance disputes hinge on evidence—and are won or lost in the details. If you’re facing a similar situation at home, don’t shoulder the burden alone. Bring your documents to Room 1802, Tower A, Xintian Century Business Center, No. 2 Beijie, Shixia, Futian District. We’ll brew a cup of tea and discuss your case thoroughly. Call us at 0755-25986969 and ask for either **Attorney Shen Jinlong** or **Attorney Li Wei**.

Disclaimer: The cases discussed in this article are all real cases handled by Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm; however, all personal information of the parties involved has been anonymized, and certain details have been simplified—without affecting the legal analysis. The content herein does not constitute formal legal advice; for specific legal matters, please consult a qualified attorney.