@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…
