Encrochat: Constitutional complaint failed
1. August 2025
Menu
May 22, 2018 /
In 1991, a married couple concluded a notarized contract of inheritance by which they mutually appointed each other as heirs and also agreed that one of their three children should receive a plot of land with a house, as he had agreed to support his parents in their old age. The property, which consisted of a plot of land with a residential building and an undeveloped meadow, was divided in 2001 at the parents’ request. Two years later, they transferred the former to the defendant by way of anticipated succession and agreed with him to waive his compulsory portion. After the mother died, the defendant also received the undeveloped meadow plot from the father, as it had been agreed in 1991 that he was to receive the entire plot, which was still undivided at the time.
After the father’s death, the plaintiff son demanded the transfer of a 1/3 co-ownership share in the meadow property. The gift had to be reversed as it impaired the contractual heirs. The decisive factor here is whether the testator had a recognizable personal interest in the gift during his lifetime. This is assumed if, for an objective observer, the gift appears to be reasonable and justified in view of the given circumstances, taking into account the contractual inheritance obligation.
The Münster Regional Court and the Hamm Higher Regional Court denied this, arguing that the defendant’s value-enhancing use of the property had primarily benefited him as the owner and that the care and support services provided had already been the reason for the transfer of the property.
Furthermore, it is apparent from the interpretation of the inheritance contract that the parents differentiated between the house and the meadow when concluding it.
Source: www.haufe.de