The Legal Aspects of Grounds for Disinheritance
The Supreme Court (OGH) has issued a landmark ruling in a recent legal dispute (Case No. 2 Ob 228/23b) concerning the estate of an artist. At the heart of the dispute is the disinheritance of two daughters, which, according to the 2015 will, was justified by serious emotional harm inflicted on the decedent.
Your Contact Person
In a recent legal dispute (Case No. 2 Ob 228/23b ) made a landmark ruling regarding an artist’s estate. At the heart of the dispute is the disinheritance of two daughters, which, according to the 2015 will, was justified by serious emotional harm inflicted on the decedent.
Background
In her will, the deceased artist named her son as her sole heir and justified disinheriting her two daughters on the grounds that they had caused her severe emotional distress. The daughters, who subsequently asserted their claim to the statutory share in a staged lawsuit, contested the stated reason for their disinheritance.
Years earlier, the decedent had transferred to her daughters, free of charge, the rights to thousands of photographs and films that were considered her life’s work. In doing so, she expressly emphasized her sole authority to decide on the use and management of the material. Despite this unambiguous agreement, the daughters repeatedly acted on their own initiative and against the testator’s clear wishes. The resulting legal disputes and court proceedings caused the testator deep, chronic distress, marked by disappointment and estrangement.
Legal Basis and Decision of the Supreme Court
Pursuant to § 770(4) of the Austrian Civil Code (ABGB), a person entitled to a compulsory share may be disinherited if that person has caused the decedent severe emotional distress in a reprehensible manner. This can take various forms, including, for example, abandoning the testator in an emergency, treating the testator with contempt, or exerting subtle psychological pressure. The Supreme Court emphasizes that occasional arguments or verbal conflicts generally do not constitute the required level of emotional distress.
The lower courts had dismissed the lawsuit because they considered the disinheritance to be justified. The Supreme Court concurred with this opinion and dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal. In its legal assessment, the Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiffs’ actions, which were contrary to the testator’s express wishes, caused her deep and chronic distress.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this probate litigation and inheritance dispute sets clear standards regarding the admissibility of disinheritance on the grounds of serious emotional harm. The case highlights the importance of family agreements and the consequences of breaching them.
Co-author: Julia Lorenz | Paralegal
