原文刊登在扬子晚报上，英文翻译都是我们自己人的手动翻译。关注袁桌会，分享新鲜事！
为独居老人在劳务市场找保姆，签订遗赠扶养协议。
图形无关
独居老人在劳务市场找保姆，签了遗赠协议。
老伴去世后，患有帕金森病的老邱开始独自生活，三个孩子每个月去看望父亲两三次。2012年5月，老邱在劳务市场找到徐，让她在家做保姆。
老伴去世后，患有帕金森病的老邱开始一个人生活。这三个孩子大约一个月去看他们的父亲两到三次。2012年5月，老邱在劳务市场找到徐，让她在家看孩子。
2016年1月15日，保姆徐请律师起草遗赠扶养协议，并请两名保健品销售人员见证。在其中一名证人的帮助下，邱在协议的最后按了手印。受许委托，律师在协议签订现场进行了录像，记录了协议签订过程。
2016年1月15日，保姆徐找律师起草遗赠扶养协议，并请两名保健品销售人员见证。老邱在其中一个见证人的协助下，在协议的最后按下了手印。受许委托，律师在协议签订现场进行了视频录音，记录了协议签订过程。
协议约定，老邱将其名下财产遗赠给徐某，由徐某负责甲方的生活、赡养、死亡、安葬等事宜，老邱的工资由徐某支配。重大医疗费等费用，除报销外，先从老邱遗赠的房屋以外的个人财产中支出。协议还约定，老邱单方处分遗赠财产导致协议终止，徐有权要求老邱退还已支付的抚养费，抚养费按每月6000元计算。
协议约定，老邱将其名下房产遗赠给徐某，徐某负责甲方的出生、抚养、死亡、安葬。老邱的工资由徐掌握。重大医疗费等费用，除报销外，均先从老邱遗留房屋以外的个人财产中支付。协议还约定，邱丹芳处置遗产财产导致协议解除，徐有权要求老邱返还已支付的抚养费，按每月6000元计算。
签完协议后，老邱病情加重，直至卧床不起。
图形无关
协议签订后，老邱病情加重，直至卧床不起。
一直卧床导致老邱身上褥疮大面积复发。甚至在2016年6月6日，老邱还处于昏迷状态。在此期间，徐没有送老邱去医院，也没有通知老邱的孩子。6月11日，老邱的子女探望父亲时发现病情加重，于是将父亲送往医院治疗。老邱住院后，徐开始和医院一起照顾他。
他留在床上，造成了大面积的复发床
ores on Lao Qiu. Even on June 6, 2016, Lao Qiu appeared in a coma. During this period, Xu did not send Lao Qiu to the doctor and did not inform Lao Qiu’s children. On June 11, Lao Qiu’s children discovered that his condition was worse when they visited his father and sent his father to the hospital for treatment. After he was hospitalized in Lao Qiu, Xu began to take care of him.
7月4日，老邱的三个子女没有与徐某打招呼，直接将父亲转至另一家医院治疗。
On July 4, the three children of Lao Qiu did not greet Xu and directly transferred his father to another hospital for treatment.
老邱于2016年10月去世，三个子女办理了老邱的丧事。2016年11月，老邱的子女以继承方式办理了老邱生前房产的产权变更登记，并委托律师向徐某发送律师函，告知徐某，并要求徐某搬离。
Lao Qiu passed away in October 2016 and three children handled the funeral of Lao Qiu. In November 2016, Lao Qiu’s children registered the property rights of Lao Qiu’s property before his death by inheritance, and commissioned a lawyer to send a lawyer’s letter to Xu to inform Xu and ask Xu to move away.
徐某可不愿意，她认为遗赠扶养协议有效，要求继承遗赠房产。于是将老邱的子女告上法庭。
Xu may not be willing, she believes that the bequest maintenance agreement is valid and requires inheritance of bequest property. So he took Lao Qiu’s children to court.
二审驳回了保姆上诉请求.
The second instance denied the nanny’s appeal.
办案法官表示，本案争议焦点为老邱生前与保姆签订的遗赠扶养协议是否是其真实意思表示、是否合法有效。
图文无关
The case judge stated that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the bequest and maintenance agreement signed by Lao Qiu and the nanny was its true meaning and whether it was legally valid.
法院审理认为，首先，这份遗赠扶养协议的制作人和见证人均与原告有利害关系。而徐某提供的视频显示，老邱只是对协议内容作了简单重复与附和，手印也是别人帮忙摁下。因此，法院对遗赠扶养协议及视频录像的合法性、关联性不予采信。
The court found, first, that the producers and witnesses of the bequest agreement had an interest in the plaintiff. The video provided by Xu showed that Lao Qiu only made a simple repetition of the content of the agreement and echoed it. The handprint was also helped by others. Therefore, the court does not accept the legitimacy and relevance of the bequest and maintenance agreement and video recording.
其次，这份协议约定的权利义务不对等，徐某的具体扶养义务只有生养死葬概述，并无具体约定，而老邱的义务明显较多，且所有的扶养支出均由他的财产支付。同时在遗赠扶养协议签订后，徐某保管支配了老邱的财产，扣除两人日常生活支出外的剩余款项也归徐某所有，故徐某仍存有收取劳动报酬的情形。
Secondly, the rights and obligations stipulated in this agreement are not equal. Xu’s specific maintenance obligations are only a summary of the birth, death and burial, and there is no specific agreement. Lao Qiu’s obligations are obviously more, and all maintenance expenses are paid by his property. At the same time, after the signing of the bequest and maintenance agreement, Xu Mou took charge of the property of Lao Qiu, and the remaining funds deducted from the daily expenses of the two were also owned by Xu Mou. Therefore, Xu Mou still has the situation of receiving labor remuneration.
另外，该协议于2016年1月15日签订，但同年7月4日徐某即不再照顾老邱。而在老邱出现褥疮和昏迷时未及时送医，也未通知其子女，存在重大过错。
In addition, the agreement was signed on January 15, 2016, but Xu no longer took care of Lao Qiu on July 4 of the same year. In the case of bedsores and coma in Lao Qiu, he was not sent to the doctor in time and his children were not notified. There were major mistakes.
综合这些原因，秦淮法院认为本案徐某与老邱签订的遗赠扶养协议无效。
Combining these reasons, the Qinhuai court held that the bequest and maintenance agreement signed by Xu and Lao Qiu in this case was invalid.
徐某在一审判决后不服，上诉至南京市中级人民法院，二审驳回了徐某的上诉请求，维持原判。
Xu was dissatisfied with the verdict of the first instance and appealed to the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court. The second instance rejected Xu’s appeal and upheld the original verdict.
