This is similar to this question but applies to a specific scenario.
In the Norwegian allotment garden community I belong to, a young child recently lost her mother to cancer. The statutes say that a “spouse, child or grandchild” can inherit the parcel, but also that a member of the community must have reached age of majority. To a layman such as myself, this may be interpreted as a potential conflict, quoting Wikipedia:
Legally, the term child may refer to anyone below the age of majority or some other age limit. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as "a human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".
The paragraph saying that the “spouse, child or grandchild” can inherit was modified most recently. Previously, it said “spouse, child, grandchild or parent”. Thus, when a minor lost her parent, a grandparent could assume ownership until the child reached age of majority. However, parents were barred from inheriting because this facilitated transition between adult siblings, which was seen as undesirable.
I assume the child must move if either of the following are true:
- A «child» can, in legal terms, refer to an adult son or daughter.
- The most recent change in the statutes has precedence.
However, the Convention on the Rights of the Child state that “The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them (…)”, so again to a layman, that could indicate that if there are indeed conflicting terms, the favour should go in to the child.
The board of the allotment garden community has decided that the child must sell her parcel. Given the wording in the statutes, especially the legal definition of a «child», and the order in which the paragraphs were written, is the case clearly in favour of a forced sale?