The reason: Her mother had died shortly before – and the woman and her sister became heir to an extensive estate worth millions.

To the inheritance According to the court’s findings, these included, among other things:

• Apartments in an apartment building with market values ​​of 627,000 euros and 340,000 euros
• a condominium that was later sold for 225,000 euros
• another condominium
• Securities deposits worth 92,034 euros
• other items such as paintings, furniture, coins and a car

The job center explained that she did not need help with these assets. The woman then sued the decision.

Inheritance that is not freely available can also count

According to the court’s calculations, the plaintiff was entitled to at least one benefit from the inheritance half of the estate value of 642,017 euros to. In the judge’s opinion, this was clearly too much to justify the need for help (File number: L 2 AS 2884/24)

The woman argued that she was initially unable to freely dispose of the estate. The community of heirs had not yet been resolved, the properties had to be renovated, and a short-term sale was practically not possible.

The court did not follow this. The LSG made it clear: At a undivided community of heirs It’s not just cash that counts. The following positions can also be taken into account when assessing the need for help:

• the co-heirs’ share of the entire estate
• Co-ownership shares in individual estate items
• the right to dispute between the community of heirs

In the court’s opinion, the assets in this specific case were not only significant, but also usable.

These points spoke against the plaintiff

For the judges, the actual process was particularly important. The main thing that spoke against the plaintiff was:

• She had previously concluded loan agreements with a bank.
• From the court’s perspective, the inheritance dispute was already well advanced.
• An apartment from the estate has already been sold. According to court information, the plaintiff received 112,500 euros from this. This meant that it had ready resources available to it during the disputed period.

According to the court, she would have been able to support herself from her own assets with this sum at the latest.

No subsidy – maybe a loan

The distinction between a grant was also crucial and a loan. The authority had offered the plaintiff a loan, secured by a mortgage. However, the woman rejected the offer.

The court then made it clear once again: If assets can probably be utilized within the approval period, a grant is generally not an option, but rather a loan.

The key statements of the judgment:

• High inheritance regularly excludes the need for help.
• Inheritance shares and claims in a community of heirs can also count as assets.
• Difficult or complex utilization does not automatically protect against credit.
• Anyone who can monetize assets in the foreseeable future is not entitled to subsidies.

Why the verdict is important

Specifically, it was about benefits according to SGB II for the period from October 2020 to March 2021 – i.e. from the time before the introduction of citizens’ money. However, the legal principles also apply to today’s citizen’s benefit cases.

The decision shows how strictly courts examine existing assets. For those affected this means:

• Not only cash is taken into account.
• Real estate, inheritance shares and portfolio values ​​can also be taken into account.
• What matters is whether exploitation appears legally and actually possible.
• Citizens’ benefit or previous SGB II benefits are subordinated.