本文的論述範圍係2010年至2014年的身分法實務發展，即以民法親屬編及繼承編為主。此段期間並無大規模的立法活動，僅有零星修正，婚姻、父母子女關係固然仍是身分法的重要議題，但隨著社會變遷尤其高齡化，老親的扶養以及死後的遺產處理也逐漸進入立法者的視野。在司法裁判方面，最高法院在夫妻剩餘財產分配相關問題上，採取較為形式的見解，例如：某債務是否屬於婚後債務，係以債務成立之時點判斷，不考量其目的；是否調整或免除分配額，亦較事實審法院謹慎，忠實地貼近「夫妻平等地分享盈餘」的立法意旨。在父母子女關係方面，關於認領的幾則裁判，對各該案件中的非婚生子女均產生在繼承上不利之結果。至於繼承領域，最高法院對於繼承回復請求權的成立要件的認定無規則可循。在限定責任方面，則盡力保護繼承人，若繼承人未能於實體訴訟中行使限定責任的抗辯，尚得於強制執行程序提起異議之訴獲得救濟。最後，關於遺囑所為之遺產處分行為，最高法院逐漸創造了「遺囑」與「繼承受益」二種分類，在時效、可否代位繼承、登記手續等方面效力不同，體現了法律續造之精神。總體而言，近五年最高法院在「純粹親屬的身分法」的親屬編相關問題上，態度顯得較為保守，尤其對非婚生子女更係如此。相對地，在「身分財產法」的繼承編相關問題上，則較為開放與活躍，肯定繼承人受限定責任之保護，也積極創造不同類型的遺囑處分，值得評價。

This article reviews the significant developments in Taiwan's family and succession law, which is stipulated in Civil Code, from 2010 to 2014. Instead of comprehensive legal reform, there have been merely a few slight revisions of the statutes in this period. The legislative amendments involve not only the matrimonial regime and parent-child relationships, which have been considered important issues in family law traditionally, but also support for elderly parents and inheritance following the social trend, especially the aging population. Regarding judicial activities, the Supreme Court's decisions in the family law have been comparatively conservative during the last four years. Take opinions on the division of net assets upon divorce for example. The Supreme Court maintains that whether a debt is pre-marital or marital should be determined by the time of its creation, regardless of its purpose. That is, even though the husband's debt is nothing to do with the wife's life but merely for the interest of the husband, it is regarded as a marital debt and hence reduces the net value of the husband's assets as long as it is created during marriage. Consequently, the husband will be less likely to distribute his assets to the wife. In addition, while dividing net assets, the Supreme Court stays close to the application of the ＂equal share rule＂ provided by statutes, notwithstanding one spouse's contribution to the net assets being less than the contribution of the other. As for parent-child relationships, a number of cases regarding acknowledgement of children born out of wedlock seem more inclined to limit the possibility for the child to inherit the deceased father's estates, which is against the child's interests. On the other hand, decisions in succession law appear to be more open-minded and active. In general, if the creditor of the estate brings a lawsuit to the court and receive an enforceable court decision because the heir did not claim his/her limited responsibility for the debts, the heir cannot contest such a decision later. However, in the situation that the heir had no means to make a claim during the substantive procedure due to the application of the law, the Supreme Court allows the heir to file an objection against such a decision to prevent enforcement. Furthermore, with regard to testamentary transfer, the court distinguishes bequests to statutory heirs from those to other beneficiaries, giving them different effects on the period of prescription, the possibility of succession in strips when the beneficiary predeceases the testator, and the process of realty registration. To sum up, this article concludes that the Supreme Court has been more willing to apply the law flexibly and creatively in succession law than family law in the past five years.