Inherited Property: Defending a Family Settlement Agreement

A Family Settlement Agreement is enforceable in Washington, D.C. If it reflects mutual consent, is executed without coercion, and is sufficiently clear in its distribution terms. 

We presented testimony and documentation confirming that both siblings signed voluntarily and that the father explicitly intended the commercial property to pass to the eldest son.

Because there was no evidence of undue influence, lack of capacity, or procedural defects, the court held that the agreement met D.C. Contract standards and should not be voided. 

This established a foundational defense against redistributing inherited property outside the agreed framework.

The petitioner alleged that a car and certain cash payments provided to the eldest son during the father’s lifetime constituted advancements under D.C. Code § 19-316. 

Under the statute, however, an advancement requires a contemporaneous writing by the decedent stating that the transfer should be deducted from the heir’s inheritance.

We demonstrated that no such writing existed and that these payments were connected to caregiving reimbursements, business support, and medical expenses—not inheritances in advance. 

Without written evidence of intent, the court could not categorize the transfers as advancements.

In applying equitable principles, the court maintained that it must respect the decedent’s intent unless compelled otherwise. 

While acknowledging the sibling’s concerns about financial disparities, the judge held that modifying the agreement entirely would contradict the father’s documented wishes. 

As a compromise, the court upheld the property allocation but ordered a small monetary equalization between the siblings based on select undocumented expenditures.

This resulted in a partial modification rather than a full redistribution.

Our litigation strategy involved:

• Establishing the agreement as a binding contract under D.C. Law.
• Demonstrating the decedent’s intent through written statements and witness testimony.
• Showing that no transfers met the statutory definition of advancements.
• Providing financial documentation supporting caregiving and medical expense reimbursements.

By controlling the evidentiary narrative, we reduced the scope of the dispute and limited the petitioner’s ability to challenge asset distribution.

The court issued the following conclusions:

1. The Family Settlement Agreement was valid and enforceable.
2. Alleged lifetime transfers were not advancements under D.C. Law.
3. A limited monetary adjustment was appropriate for clarity and fairness.

The primary inherited property, the commercial building remained with our client.

Practical Guidance for Future Estate Planning

To reduce the risk of disputes

• Ensure all settlement agreements are written and signed.
• Keep records of caregiving expenses and lifetime transfers.
• Document the decedent’s intent clearly.
• Seek legal advice before accepting or providing substantial financial support.

When families proactively manage these issues, inherited property disputes can often be avoided.