@Meloncollie I can’t answer with certainty for the scenario you describe. In the case I’ve been describing, the split was made based on the value at the time the accounts were settled - which was several months after the death. But the Erben (heirs) had to agree on what to do. Any one of the heirs could have blocked everything by not agreeing.
The person who is set to inherit 25% can block everything and wait until stocks go back up, for example. Or the person who inherits 75% can block everything and say “we both get nothing unless we come to an agreement”. One of the first questions an attorney asked us was “How well do you get along with the other heirs?”
Before the heirs can receive their shares, all outstanding debts have to be dealt with. That means the value of the estate can change quite a bit before the heirs get anything. The value of a home or stocks can increase or decrease over time. It only makes sense to me that it’s based on the value at the time a split is agreed by the heirs. But I’m not a lawyer.
If the estate has fallen in value and you try to split on the value at the time of the death, then that simply won’t work because there is no longer enough money to pay each heir their due amount.
We had a problem where one heir refused to sign the papers for no good reason, which was a stalemate that went on for years.
Eventually, the bank that held the money threatened to close the account and move the money to their credit.
I don’t know if that was legal, but it worked.
With the stock market prices will likely return within a year, of course the person demanding an exact amount want want any excess so everybody else will be happy
The inventory of assets is done as of the date of death, and technically this is the basis for the inheritance split. But this valuation is essentially just the starting point to negotiations.
The problem here is that the heirs do not know one another so negotiations have proven difficult. It’s in the hands of each side’s lawyers now.
Unfortunately the value of the estate will fall even further once the lawyers’ fees are accounted for…
Moral of this sad story: Do not rely on statutory inheritance - take a few minutes and write a Testament now! And all of this mess could have been avoided.
I agree a testament could be useful, but I’m not sure it resolves all potential problems.
In the case I’m discussing there was/is a will. The heirs still have to agree in order for everything to be fully executed and the community of heirs dissolved. Otherwise, the heirs keep owning jointly in what I think is called an Erbengemeinschaft. However, I wonder whether a will could set out a more specific split in terms of stocks/cash vs real estate. A will would also specify one individual or law firm as an executor, thereby (hopefully) containing the costs.
Unrelated, but maybe still relevant: I met with a notaire (which is also an attorney in Switzerland) years ago, for my own situation. The notaire said that designating a notaire as executor in Switzerland can help keep costs down. If one appoints a banker or a friend, etc. then that person can take a percentage of the estate as “costs”. Apparently notaries can only charge a flat fee plus genuine expenses, and they are audited.
A few years ago we had a meeting with our bank’s “Wills and Inheritance” department (ZKB), for which they charged handsomely.
The meeting was held in German for “legal reasons”. The explained the principle of will making (handwritten and signed and dated - mine in English) and what is required under Swiss law. We drew up our wills and division of our wealth on the principle of who brought assets into the marriage.
We then showed the details to the bank who made a couple of small adjustments, but otherwise said it was hunky-dory…
Couldn’t find this particular example outlined in the usual online resources, so hoping maybe someone here might know…
Under statutory inheritance, does the chain of inheritance include testamentary heirs to a statutory heir who themselves are not related to the deceased?
Example:
A dies without a will. One of the statutory heirs is a sibling, B.
B dies before A’s estate is settled. B has a testament, naming his wife, C, and stepchild, D, as his heirs.
Yes, if B was the only one I would say so. Unless the wife has become the ex-wife and the step-daughter is not really adopted.
But even then, if B didn’t change his will after the divorce they inherit. BUT in that scenario they have to pay taxes on the heritage. (the ex-wife does. If the stepdaughter was adopted by B she obviously doesn’t).
As Curley wrote, the inheritance right passes down.
The notary who writes the certificate of inheritance should advise on that.
In Switzerland, the cantonal authorities, specifically the Justice of the Peace or a similar body responsible for inheritance matters, are accountable for tracing inheritors. They are tasked with securing the inheritance procedure and taking necessary measures, including potentially identifying and locating inheritors, after a person’s death.
As far as I understand it, B never adopted D. B and C were married at the time of B’s death. There are other statutory heirs to A’s estate, if that has any impact.
So do I have this correct? Since B, a statutory heir, was alive at the time of A’s death, B inherits his portion, punkt fertig. The relationship of B’s testimentary heirs to A becomes a moot point because the money was B’s, to leave to whoever he wished, despite A’s estate not being settled at the time of B’s death. Oder?
So whatever B inherits is part of B’s estate although it was not yet paid over.
When B dies their estate is shared amongst B’s heirs even if in worst case they were specifically excluded in A’s will.
Incidentally in Zurich Canton you have to pay “Vermogen” tax on an inheritance even if it is not yet paid out. There is even a part of the tax form just for declaring this.
We had to pay this tax for four years before we actually got the money.
I suspect it’s not that simple. @Meloncollie you’ve used the phrase “not settled” a few times in your recent example. What do you mean by that?
As I understand it, a Swiss estate is not 100% “settled” so long as an Erbengemeinschaft/Community of heirs exists. It’s only after all the heirs have agreed on the full, equitable division that it’s settled and each owns their part individually instead of together - for example if one heir simply buys out the others. I suppose if it’s only cash then that might be easier to divide, but if one heir wants to block the lot then they can.
B might be a statutory heir of A, but it sounds like he wasn’t the only heir. Now his heirs will take over his part of the Erbengemeinschaft. That includes any debt that A had, not just cash or property. And B’s heirs must agree with the other heirs of A in order for anything to move forward. It sounds as though A’s other heirs are not fans of C and D inheriting, so this could get messy.
That’s a moot point, the deciding factor is the amount one has claim to. If you own a bond, then you don’t have the cash either. And yet you have claim for however much the bond is for.
I think you’re right, which is why I asked what Meloncollie meant. Let’s say B was one of two statutory heirs of A. The other was E. B and E are each entitled to 50% of A’s estate. Now that B has passed, C and D are entitled to split his 50% (depending on how B’s will is written). E still has his 50% and probably wants more or feels entitled to more since the estate “is not settled”. As I understand it, C and D are entitled to eventually get B’s share, but E can block it for quite a while if he doesn’t agree. I don’t know how people eventually come to an agreement on these things.
3W, by not settled I meant that the heirs (B and the other initial statutory heirs) had not yet come to an agreement. The community of heirs was still in negotiations. Now that there are new heirs, that process will likely get more complicated.
(I’m thinking settled as in the US sense, when the estate distribution is finally, legally, done and dusted.)
Curley, that joke is so true. And universal.
Helping several widowed friends go through this now, I continue to be shocked at how a process that on paper looks so simple can get so very messy.
On the German side, they can block it forever. Some people claim that the law dates back to tribal times.
I believe on the French side, one can go to court and force a conclusion.
My friend whose husband was killed in a cycling accident over a year ago is no nearer to reaching a conclusion than she was a year ago and hers is a simple case with no objections and obvious clear cut heirs (herself and two children still living at home).
The notaries certainly like to take their time here.
