-
- Art. 3 FC
- Art. 5a FC
- Art. 6 FC
- Art. 10 FC
- Art. 16 FC
- Art. 17 FC
- Art. 20 FC
- Art. 22 FC
- Art. 29a FC
- Art. 30 FC
- Art. 32 FC
- Art. 42 FC
- Art. 43 FC
- Art. 43a FC
- Art. 55 FC
- Art. 56 FC
- Art. 60 FC
- Art. 68 FC
- Art. 75b FC
- Art. 77 FC
- Art. 96 para. 2 lit. a FC
- Art. 110 FC
- Art. 117a FC
- Art. 118 FC
- Art. 123b FC
- Art. 136 FC
- Art. 166 FC
-
- Art. 11 CO
- Art. 12 CO
- Art. 50 CO
- Art. 51 CO
- Art. 84 CO
- Art. 143 CO
- Art. 144 CO
- Art. 145 CO
- Art. 146 CO
- Art. 147 CO
- Art. 148 CO
- Art. 149 CO
- Art. 150 CO
- Art. 701 CO
- Art. 715 CO
- Art. 715a CO
- Art. 734f CO
- Art. 785 CO
- Art. 786 CO
- Art. 787 CO
- Art. 788 CO
- Transitional provisions to the revision of the Stock Corporation Act of June 19, 2020
- Art. 808c CO
-
- Art. 2 PRA
- Art. 3 PRA
- Art. 4 PRA
- Art. 6 PRA
- Art. 10 PRA
- Art. 10a PRA
- Art. 11 PRA
- Art. 12 PRA
- Art. 13 PRA
- Art. 14 PRA
- Art. 15 PRA
- Art. 16 PRA
- Art. 17 PRA
- Art. 19 PRA
- Art. 20 PRA
- Art. 21 PRA
- Art. 22 PRA
- Art. 23 PRA
- Art. 24 PRA
- Art. 25 PRA
- Art. 26 PRA
- Art. 27 PRA
- Art. 29 PRA
- Art. 30 PRA
- Art. 31 PRA
- Art. 32 PRA
- Art. 32a PRA
- Art. 33 PRA
- Art. 34 PRA
- Art. 35 PRA
- Art. 36 PRA
- Art. 37 PRA
- Art. 38 PRA
- Art. 39 PRA
- Art. 40 PRA
- Art. 41 PRA
- Art. 42 PRA
- Art. 43 PRA
- Art. 44 PRA
- Art. 45 PRA
- Art. 46 PRA
- Art. 47 PRA
- Art. 48 PRA
- Art. 49 PRA
- Art. 50 PRA
- Art. 51 PRA
- Art. 52 PRA
- Art. 53 PRA
- Art. 54 PRA
- Art. 55 PRA
- Art. 56 PRA
- Art. 57 PRA
- Art. 58 PRA
- Art. 59a PRA
- Art. 59b PRA
- Art. 59c PRA
- Art. 62 PRA
- Art. 63 PRA
- Art. 67 PRA
- Art. 67a PRA
- Art. 67b PRA
- Art. 73 PRA
- Art. 73a PRA
- Art. 75 PRA
- Art. 75a PRA
- Art. 76 PRA
- Art. 76a PRA
- Art. 90 PRA
-
- Vorb. zu Art. 1 FADP
- Art. 1 FADP
- Art. 2 FADP
- Art. 3 FADP
- Art. 5 lit. f und g FADP
- Art. 6 Abs. 6 and 7 FADP
- Art. 7 FADP
- Art. 10 FADP
- Art. 11 FADP
- Art. 12 FADP
- Art. 14 FADP
- Art. 15 FADP
- Art. 19 FADP
- Art. 20 FADP
- Art. 22 FADP
- Art. 23 FADP
- Art. 25 FADP
- Art. 26 FADP
- Art. 27 FADP
- Art. 31 para. 2 lit. e FADP
- Art. 33 FADP
- Art. 34 FADP
- Art. 35 FADP
- Art. 38 FADP
- Art. 39 FADP
- Art. 40 FADP
- Art. 41 FADP
- Art. 42 FADP
- Art. 43 FADP
- Art. 44 FADP
- Art. 44a FADP
- Art. 45 FADP
- Art. 46 FADP
- Art. 47 FADP
- Art. 47a FADP
- Art. 48 FADP
- Art. 49 FADP
- Art. 50 FADP
- Art. 51 FADP
- Art. 54 FADP
- Art. 57 FADP
- Art. 58 FADP
- Art. 60 FADP
- Art. 61 FADP
- Art. 62 FADP
- Art. 63 FADP
- Art. 64 FADP
- Art. 65 FADP
- Art. 66 FADP
- Art. 67 FADP
- Art. 69 FADP
- Art. 72 FADP
- Art. 72a FADP
-
- Art. 2 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 3 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 4 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 5 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 6 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 7 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 8 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 9 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 11 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 12 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 25 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 29 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 32 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 33 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 34 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
CODE OF OBLIGATIONS
FEDERAL LAW ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
LUGANO CONVENTION
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
FEDERAL ACT ON POLITICAL RIGHTS
CIVIL CODE
FEDERAL ACT ON CARTELS AND OTHER RESTRAINTS OF COMPETITION
FEDERAL ACT ON INTERNATIONAL MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
DEBT ENFORCEMENT AND BANKRUPTCY ACT
FEDERAL ACT ON DATA PROTECTION
SWISS CRIMINAL CODE
CYBERCRIME CONVENTION
- I. Introduction
- II. Reduction (Art. 522 para. 1 CC)
- III. Division rules vs. advance legacy (Art. 522 para. 2 CC)
- Bibliography
- Materials
I. Introduction
1 The testator's freedom of disposition with regard to property rights is limited by the right to a compulsory portion (Art. 470 CC). The compulsory portions constitute that part of the estate that, in principle, cannot be deprived of the heirs entitled to a compulsory portion.
2 In the case of heirs protected by a compulsory portion, the first question that arises after the testator's death is whether their compulsory portion has been preserved or violated. The compulsory portion, which since January 1, 2023 corresponds to half of the statutory inheritance claim for the surviving spouse and descendants (Art. 471 in conjunction with Art. 457 et seq. CC, see N. 8), can be preserved or violated by dispositions of the testator during his or her lifetime or by disposition of property upon death. The amount of the compulsory portion is not determined by multiplying the compulsory portion quota by the net estate (or the division estate), but by the so-called compulsory portion calculation estate (“PTBM”), which also takes into account certain lifetime gifts (see N. 11). Accordingly, the compulsory portion can be preserved, for example, if an heir protected by the compulsory portion is excluded or disinherited by means of a disposition of property upon death, but the testator has sufficiently favored the heir in terms of property rights by means of lifetime dispositions. On the other hand, the compulsory portion can be violated, for example, even though no disposition of property upon death is left (and the statutory law of succession applies) or an heir protected by the compulsory portion is appointed as an heir or legatee with the compulsory portion quota or a higher quota ( with a higher share) as an heir or legatee, but the testator has made significant pecuniary gifts in favor of co-heirs or third parties during his or her lifetime.
3 In a second step, the question arises as to what extent a violation of the compulsory portion can be restored: If the compulsory portion is violated by property dispositions inter vivos or mortis causa, it can be restored in three stages: If the testator leaves no disposition of property upon death or only a partial disposition, the statutory shares of the inheritance can be adjusted or reduced (so-called reduction of the acquisition inter vivos). If the testator leaves a disposition of property upon death, the inheritances and bequests contained therein can be adjusted or reduced (so-called reduction of the acquisition testate). In the final step, lifetime gifts are reduced (for the order of reduction, see N. 21 and Art. 532 CC).
4 The rules of reduction are important for both steps. On the one hand, they determine which property dispositions are to be added to the PTBM, from which the value of the compulsory portion is derived. On the other hand, it is determined which acquisitions and donations can be reduced in order to restore the compulsory portion. The reduction thus serves to protect the heirs protected by the compulsory portion by determining the value of the compulsory portion – irrespective of the testator's will (see N. 30) – and enabling the procedural enforcement of the right to a compulsory portion.
II. Reduction (Art. 522 para. 1 CC)
A. Right to reduction
1. Requirements
5 Persons who have a claim to a compulsory portion (Art. 470 para. 1 CC) and who receive less than their compulsory portion “in terms of value” may, in accordance with Art. 522 para. 1 CC, demand the reduction of certain acquisitions and gifts. This right to reduction therefore requires that (i) the person concerned has a legal right to a compulsory portion within the meaning of Art. 470 para. 1 CC (see notes 7-8) and (ii) this compulsory portion exceeds the total value of the assets and benefits that the testator has received or will receive inter vivos, under a disposition of property upon death and/or under the intestate succession (see notes 9-14).
6 In principle, this is a quantitative and not a qualitative claim: if the above conditions are not cumulatively fulfilled, there is no violation of the compulsory portion or a claim for reduction, even if the compulsory portion is preserved by means of lifetime gifts and/or a legacy (see N. 2). There is no right to inherit, which is why the compulsory portion of a person entitled to a compulsory portion can also be preserved by means of lifetime gifts or a legacy. However, a certain qualitative claim can be recognized in the fact that a person entitled to a compulsory portion is entitled to assets that are easy to trade (“biens aisément négociables”, i.e. in particular a sum of money, securities or real estate) and, in the amount of their compulsory portion, in particular, does not have to accept any usufructuary or pension entitlement, even if the capital value of such an entitlement exceeds the amount of the compulsory portion.
2. Condition no. 1: Right to a compulsory portion
a. Entitlement to a compulsory portion
7 The first step is to determine whether there is a right to a compulsory portion. As of January 1, 2023, i.e., if the testator died on or after January 1, 2023, only descendants and spouses (or registered partners) have a right to a compulsory portion (Art. 470 f. CC). However, such persons have no right to a compulsory portion if they (i) did not survive the testator (Art. 542 et seq. CC), (ii) disclaim the inheritance (Art. 566 et seq. CC), (iii) have entered into a contract with the testator waiving their inheritance, which includes the compulsory portion (Art. 495 CC), (iv) are unworthy of inheritance (Art. 540 CC) or (v) have been legally disinherited (Art. 477 CC).
b. Statutory share
8 As of January 1, 2023, i.e. if the testator died on or after January 1, 2023, the statutory share for descendants and spouses is half of their statutory inheritance claim (Art. 471 CC). If the deceased leaves behind a spouse and two descendants, for example, the spouse's compulsory portion is ¼ (Art. 471 in conjunction with Art. 462 no. 1 CC) and the compulsory portion of the descendants is 1/8 each (Art. 471 in conjunction with Art. 457 para. 2 in conjunction with Art. 462 no. 1 CC).
3. Requirement no. 2: Violation of the compulsory portion
a. Determining the amount of the compulsory portion
9 While there is usually clarity as to whether the person concerned has a claim to a compulsory portion and how high the compulsory portion rate is, the determination of the PTBM, at least in complex circumstances (in particular in the case of lifetime gifts of real estate or companies), entails a relatively high potential for conflict and negotiation. The PTBM is determined – as a “purely mathematical variable” – by adding (i) the pure estate assets (or net estate assets) (ii) the gifts subject to equalization within the meaning of Art. 626 et seq. CC and (iii) the gifts that can be reduced within the meaning of Art. 527 et seq. CC. The market value on the date of death is decisive (Art. 474 para. 1 CC). The market value is the “market value” or “objective” value that would be achieved as proceeds (less any taxes, fees and costs) if the property were sold to an independent third party; in other words, the value that could be realized if the property were sold on the open market.
10 The net estate is determined on the basis of the testator's assets at the time of death (principle of the day of death, Art. 474 and Art. 537 para. 2 CC). To determine the amount of the net estate, the estate assets must be subtracted from the estate liabilities, i.e. the testator's debts and certain inheritance debts (see Art. 474 para. 2 CC; but not any legacies). In the case of a married testator, (i) the claims and/or debts under the matrimonial property regime (and here, inter alia, Art. 216 CC and Art. 241 para. 2 et seq. CC) as well as (ii) – if the estate of a predeceased spouse has not yet been divided – the inheritance claim in the estate of the predeceased spouse must also be taken into account.
11 All compensable contributions (cf. Art. 626 et seq. CC), all diminishable contributions made during the testator's lifetime (cf. Art. 527 CC) and the surrender values of certain insurance policies as well as claims under tied pension provision (see Art. 529 CC), also at the value at the time of the testator's death.
12 To determine the size of the compulsory portion, the PTBM is multiplied by the compulsory portion rate.
b. Determining the violation of the compulsory portion
13 In order to determine whether there has been a violation of the compulsory portion, the amount of the compulsory portion is compared with the total of the assets or benefits that the person concerned received from the testator during his or her lifetime and will receive in accordance with the disposition of property upon death and/or intestate succession. The doctrine of “bienes aisément négociables” remains reserved (see N. 6).
14 Changes in the value of the net estate occurring after the date of death are irrelevant for determining the violation of the compulsory portion: a subsequent decrease in value cannot lead to a violation of the compulsory portion that did not exist at the time of death, nor can a subsequent increase in value remedy a violation of the compulsory portion that existed at the time of death. A reduction in the reserved share determined at the time of death is fixed in amount and remains unchangeable. Changes in the value of a lifetime gift between the date of death and the judgment of reduction generally only affect the lifetime beneficiary, subject to the option of Art. 526 CC, which also applies to lifetime gifts.
B. Procedural
1. Right to bring an action
15 Persons who (i) have a statutory share (cf. N. 7) and (ii) whose statutory share is infringed in terms of value, i.e. insofar as they in accordance with the disposition of property upon death or the statutory law of succession nor have already received during their lifetime (see N. 13); this in turn is subject to the “biens aisément négociables” doctrine (see N. 6).
16 If an active legitimized person dies after the testator, their heirs enter into their legal position, which also includes the right to a compulsory portion (Art. 560 CC), whereby (also) the active legitimization passes to them.
17 If a person with a right to claim legally transfers their share of the inheritance after the death of the testator, the acquiring party does not thereby become entitled to claim. This applies both to the sale of the estate liquidation proceeds in accordance with Art. 635 para. 2 CC and to the assignment of the inheritance share in accordance with Art. 635 para. 1 CC. However, this does not preclude the possibility of the heir selling the estate from being authorized by the enforcing heir to enforce the reduction in accordance with Art. 68 CPC.
18 There is no necessary, but only simple joinder of parties within the meaning of Art. 71 CPC between several persons whose compulsory portion has been violated. This means, among other things, that each person whose compulsory portion has been violated asserts independent claims and is authorized to conduct their case independently of other persons whose compulsory portion has been violated.
19 Under certain conditions, the following persons are also entitled to sue: (i) the bankruptcy trustee or creditors of an heir entitled to a compulsory portion (see Art. 524 CC), (ii) the legatee of a reduction debtor (see Art. 486 para. 1 and Art. 5 25 para. 2 CC) and (iii) a reduction debtor who has provided the testator with consideration under a positive, remunerated inheritance contract (see Art. 528 para. 2 CC).
2. Capacity to be sued
20 A person is capacity to be sued if they have benefited under the intestate succession, the testamentary disposition or the lifetime gifts of the testator, beyond any right to a compulsory portion of their own, , provided that the acquisitions and/or gifts in question are reducible and that their reduction is necessary in view of the order of reduction in order to establish the legal claim of the person(s) entitled to the inheritance. There is no necessary, but only simple passive joinder of parties between several persons with passive legitimation. The community of heirs is not passively legitimized. As a rule, the executor is also not a passive party.
3. Reduction order
21 In order to establish the (violated) claim to the compulsory portion, (i) acquisitions in accordance with the intestate succession (so-called intestate acquisition), (ii) donations mortis causa (so-called testate acquisition) and (iii) donations inter vivos are reduced in accordance with Art. 522 para. 1 CC and Art. 532 para. 1 CC (so-called intestacy acquisition), (ii) donations mortis causa (so-called testacy acquisition) and (iii) donations inter vivos; this is reduced to the extent that “until the compulsory portion is established”. In the action to reduce the estate, particular consideration must be given to the persons against whom the reduction is asserted, in view of this order of succession.
4. Jurisdiction
22 The court at the last domicile of the deceased has local jurisdiction over the action to reduce the estate (Art. 28 para. 1 CPC, subject to Art. 17 f. CPC). The proceedings before the civil court are preceded by an attempt at conciliation before the conciliation authority (Art. 197 CPC), which may be waived under certain circumstances (Art. 199 CPC).
5. Time limit
23 The action for reduction is subject to a one-year relative and a ten-year absolute forfeiture period, which is supplemented by a temporally unlimited possibility of objection. It should be noted that a person protected by a compulsory portion who has been completely excluded or ignored by disposition of property upon death (so-called virtual heiress) only acquires the status of heir (as a legal right in rem) by initiating an action for reduction within the time limit and the action for reduction is upheld.
6. Burden of proof
24 The burden of proof for the existence of the conditions for a reduction, in particular for the existence of a reducible benefit and the exceeding of the available quota, lies with the person who asserts the reduction by way of action or objection (Art. 8 CC). The standard of proof applies here, whereby the court must be fully convinced; the evidentiary difficulties that regularly arise in practice do not lead to any easing of the burden of proof.
7. Amount in dispute
25 Because the amount in dispute is determined by the legal request and the action for reduction is pecuniary in nature, the amount in dispute in the action for reduction is based on the potential litigation profit, i.e. the amount to be reduced. If the action for reduction is combined with an action for distribution of the estate in objective joinder of actions (see N. 29), the amount in dispute is generally based (in the absence of an additional action for performance, see N. 28) on the action for distribution of the estate, i.e. generally on the estate being claimed – increased by the asserted reduction. If the action to reduce the inheritance is brought as an alternative to an action for annulment, the amount in dispute is generally based on the amount in dispute in the action for annulment.
C. Legal nature
1. Legal nature of the reduction and types of action
26 The action for reduction is a procedural action within the meaning of Art. 87 CPC. It has constitutive effect in that the judgment of reduction establishes a new legal situation; however, this only applies to the parties to the proceedings. The constitutive effect of a legally binding judgment of reduction is applied retroactively to the date of death.
27 Due to the fact that this is a declaratory action, in practice there is the problem or legal uncertainty of (i) whether a legally valid or legally constitutive reduction can be made with an out-of-court agreement and (ii) to what extent such an agreed reduction can lead to potentially taxable transfers. The first issue is regularly addressed by concluding the agreement as part of the conciliation proceedings, especially since such a settlement has the effect of a legally binding decision (judgment surrogate according to Art. 208 para. 2 CPC). With regard to the second issue, however, it should be noted that tax authorities themselves are not bound by such an agreement under Art. 208 para. 1 CPC, which is not based on a court decision, and accordingly a tax ruling may be advisable.
28 If the net estate (or a reduction of the intestacy and/or testamentary acquisition of the co-heirs or legatees) is insufficient to cover the plaintiff's compulsory portion, the action for reduction should be combined with an action for performance in objective joinder of actions. Otherwise, an action for performance must be initiated and enforced subsequently to the reduction judgment, especially since the reduction judgment is a pure declaratory judgment that does not oblige the defendant to perform, but merely provides the plaintiff with the basis for helping his claim for performance to be enforced with a second action. Such a combination of actions is also recommended because the default of such a claim does not begin on the date of death, to which the constructive effect of the reduction is referred back, but only with the initiation of the corresponding action for performance. Because it is sometimes not (yet) possible to quantify the claim at the beginning of the proceedings when such an action for performance is brought, it can in principle be designed as an unquantified claim action, in which case a minimum value of the claim must be stated (Art. 85 para. 1 CPC).
29 It is admissible and relatively common in practice to combine the action for reduction with an action for annulment and/or an action for the division of the estate by means of an objective joinder of claims. If, for example, a disposition of property upon death (will or inheritance contract) is deemed invalid because it violates mandatory portions, the invalidity of the disposition of property upon death is regularly requested in the main argument and the reduction of the disposition of property upon death is requested in the alternative argument.
2. Relatively mandatory nature of reduction
30 The rules on the reserved share and on reduction are, in principle, mandatory provisions. This means that, from a legal point of view, the testator cannot derogate from them, in particular neither by disposition of property upon death nor by legal or de facto acts during their lifetime, except for the possibilities of a contract waiving succession (Art. 495 CC) and disinheritance (Art. 477 CC).
31 However, persons protected by a compulsory portion whose claim to a compulsory portion is violated are not obliged to initiate a reduction action or to assert the reduction by way of objection, but may waive it. A waiver of the claim for reduction is possible after the death of the testator by means of a unilateral, informal declaration. Passive behavior on the part of the person whose right to a compulsory portion has been violated does not in principle constitute a waiver, but a waiver of the claim for reduction can also be implied. The assumption of an implied waiver requires that the heir was aware of the essential elements justifying the claim for reduction and that his declaration was sufficiently communicated to the beneficiary. If the person entitled to bring an action allows the time limit for filing an action under Art. 533 para. 1 CC to elapse, the action for reduction is waived, but this does not yet constitute a final waiver of the right to a reduction, because the defense of reduction may still be possible. If the right to a compulsory portion is waived, it should be noted that, from an inheritance law perspective, the waiver can be qualified as a gift subject to equalization or reduction, from a supplementary benefit law perspective as a waiver of assets within the meaning of Art. 9a para. 3 and Art. 11a para. 2 ELG and from a tax law perspective, it may be qualified as a (potentially taxable) (cross) gift.
3. Relationship between equalization and reduction
32 While equalization (Art. 626 et seq. CC) serves to ensure equal treatment of the heirs, the purpose of reduction is to protect the heirs with a protected statutory share. According to Art. 527 no. 1 CC, those bequests are to be reduced that by their nature would be subject to statutory equalization (Art. 626 para. 2 CC) but are not subject to equalization. This may be the case in particular if there is a (full or limited) dispensation from equalization (Art. 626 para. 2, Art. 629 CC) or if the recipient of the benefit disclaims the inheritance. The reduction under Art. 527 no. 1 CC is therefore subsidiary to the equalization. This means that a request for reduction cannot be granted as long as the decision on the equalization obligation has not been finalized. In other words, a gift can only be reduced if it is not subject to equalization. However, a gift that is subject to equalization is relevant for the reduction insofar as it must be taken into account when calculating the PTBM (see N. 11).
III. Division rules vs. advance legacy (Art. 522 para. 2 CC)
33 If an heir is assigned a specific asset by disposition of property upon death, the question arises as to whether this favoritism is to be qualified (i) as a division rule or (ii) as an advance legacy. With a division provision within the meaning of Art. 608 CC, the testator can influence the division of the estate among the heirs to the extent that he grants an heir the right to take over a specific estate asset, crediting it to his inheritance share. In contrast, a pre-mortem legacy (Prälegat) is a legacy in favor of an heir within the meaning of Art. 484 CC, whereby the beneficiary heir does not have to credit the legacy-related pecuniary advantage to his or her inheritance.
34 If the testator has assigned certain assets to a statutory heir (or to an appointed heir in accordance with Art. 608 para. 3 CC) by disposition of property upon death, this is to be understood as division provisions, provided that no other will of the testator is apparent from the disposition (Art. 522 para. 2 CC). Consequently, there is a legal (and refutable) presumption that, in case of doubt, there is a mere division provision within the meaning of Art. 608 CC and no additional value-based (or extraordinary) benefit, i.e. no advance legacy (preferment).
35 In order to refute the legal presumption and to be able to accept a prepaid legacy accordingly, a different intention must be “evident from the disposition”. However, the requirements for this counter-evidence, i.e. for refuting the presumption, are not too strict. As with other provisions of inheritance law, where the test is whether “no other will of the testator is apparent from the disposition”, such a will does not have to be expressly stated in the disposition of property upon death, but it must at least be possible to determine it by way of interpretation. In this context, it is not sufficient for such a “contrary will” of the testator to be evident only from external elements (e.g. letters, e-mails or notes).
36 If the testator has allocated certain assets to an heir by means of a disposition of property upon death at a value below the market value, a so-called quota legacy is to be assumed. With regard to the allocation of the asset, there is generally (in accordance with the presumption rule of Art. 522 para. 2 and Art. 608 para. 3 CC) a division provision and, with regard to the difference in value, an advance legacy.
Bibliography
Abt Daniel, Der Erbteilungsprozess als Ultima Ratio – praxisrelevante Aspekte zur Planung und Abwicklung, successio 4 (2022), S. 300-319 (zit. Abt).
Ammann Dario, Die Erbteilungsklage im schweizerischen Erbrecht, Zürich/St. Gallen 2020 (zit. Ammann).
Baumann Lorenz, Vergleichsvereinbarungen und ihre Risiken bei der Erbschaftssteuer, BGer 2C_550/2019, successio 2 (2022), S. 146-153 (zit. Baumann, Vergleichsvereinbarungen).
Baumann Lorenz, Das Stichtagsprinzip und seine Tragweite im Ehegüterrecht und im Erbrecht, successio 3/2024, S. 220-240 (zit. Baumann, Stichtagsprinzip).
Bessenich Balthasar/Bopp Lukas, Kommentierung zu Art. 87 ZPO, in: Thomas Sutter-Somm/Franz Hasenböhler/Christoph Leuenberger (Hrsg.), Kommentar zur Schweizerischen Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), Zürich/Basel/Genf 2010 (zit. Bessenich/Bopp, Art. 87 ZPO).
Brändli Roger, Vorschlagszuweisung an den vorversterbenden Ehegatten und die Frage der erbrechtlichen Herabsetzung, AJP 3 (2003), S. 335-341 (zit. Brändli).
Brückner Christian/Weibel Thomas/Pesenti Francesca, Die erbrechtlichen Klagen, 4. Aufl.. Zürich/Basel/Genf 2022 (zit. Brückner/Weibel/Pesenti).
Burkart Fabian, Kommentierung zu Art. 484 ZGB, in: Daniel Abt/Thomas Weibel (Hrsg.), Praxiskommentar Erbrecht, 5. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. Burkart, PraKomm, Art. 484 ZGB).
Eggel Martin, Prozessuale und planerische Herausforderungen bei Ehegatten-Doppelnachlässen, AJP 12 (2024), S. 1286-1305 (zit. Eggel).
Eitel Paul/Bieri Marjolein, Die Durchführung der Herabsetzung bei Schenkungen, Lebensversicherungen und Trusts, successio 4 (2015), S. 288-303 (zit. Eitel/Bieri).
Eitel Paul, Die Berücksichtigung lebzeitiger Zuwendungen im Erbrecht, Bern 1998 (zit. Eitel, Erbrecht).
Eitel Paul, Die erbrechtliche Berücksichtigung lebzeitiger Zuwendungen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Ausgleichung und Herabsetzung, ZBJV 142 (2006), S. 457-494 (zit. Eitel, Zuwendung).
Eitel Paul, Erbvorbezüge und Schenkungen – Ausgleichung und Herabsetzung, in: Stephan Wolf (Hrsg.), Erbvorempfang und Schenkung – Zivil- und steuerrechtliche Aspekte sowie Folgen für Ergänzungsleistungen, Alters- und Pflegeheimkosten, Weiterbildungstagung des Verbandes bernerischer Notare und des Instituts für Notariatsrecht und Notarielle Praxis an der Universität Bern vom 26./27.10.2016, S. 121-154 (zit. Eitel, Erbvorbezüge).
Eitel Paul, Herabsetzungspflicht nach Art. 527 Ziff. 1 ZGB, AJP 10 (2000), S. 1289-1293 (zit. Eitel, Herabsetzungspflicht).
Escher Arnold, Zürcher Kommentar - Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Erbrecht (Art. 457-536 ZGB), Band II 1/2, 3. Aufl., Zürich 1959 (zit. ZK-Escher).
Fankhauser Roland, Kommentierung zu Art. 522 ZGB, in: Ruth Arnet/Peter Breitschmid/Alexandra Jungo (Hrsg.), Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht, Band 2, 4. Aufl., Zürich 2023 (zit. CHK-Fankhauser, Art. 522 ZGB).
Geiser Thomas, Liegenschaftsabtretungen, AJP 8 (2014), S. 1045-1054 (zit. Geiser)
Göksu Tarkan, Das Rechtsbegehren der Herabsetzungsklage, in: Jörg Schmid/Regina Aebi-Müller/Peter Breitschmid/Barbara Graham-Siegenthaler/Alexandra Jungo (Hrsg.), Spuren im Erbrecht, Festschrift für Paul Eitel, Zürich/Genf 2022, S. 247-265 (zit. Göksu).
Henninger Julia, Die Pflichtteilsproblematik bei der Unternehmensnachfolge, Zürich/Basel/Genf 2019 (zit. Henninger).
Hrubesch-Millauer Stephanie, Kommentierung zu Vorbemerkungen zu Art. 522 ff. ZGB, in: Daniel Abt/Thomas Weibel (Hrsg.), Praxiskommentar Erbrecht, 5. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. Hrubesch-Millauer, PraKomm, Vorb. zu Art. 522 ff. ZGB).
Hrubesch-Millauer Stephanie, Kommentierung zu Art. 522 ZGB, in: Daniel Abt/Thomas Weibel (Hrsg.), Praxiskommentar Erbrecht, 5. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. Hrubesch-Millauer, PraKomm, Art. 522 ZGB).
Hrubesch-Millauer Stephanie, Kommentierung zu Art. 533 ZGB, in: Daniel Abt/Thomas Weibel (Hrsg.), Praxiskommentar Erbrecht, 5. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. Hrubesch-Millauer, PraKomm, Art. 533 ZGB).
Hrubesch-Millauer Stephanie/Bosshardt Martina/Kocher Moritz, Rechtsbegehren im Erbrecht, successio 1 (2018), S. 4-30 (zit. Hrubesch-Millauer/Bosshardt/Kocher).
Jungo Alexandra, Die ehevertraglich begünstigte Ehegattin zwischen Pflichtteilsansprüchen gemeinsamer und nichtgemeinsamer Kinder, in: Jörg Schmid/Regina Aebi-Müller/Peter Breitschmid/Barbara Graham-Siegenthaler/Alexandra Jungo (Hrsg.), Spuren im Erbrecht, Festschrift für Paul Eitel, Zürich/Genf 2022, S. 371-390 (zit. Jungo, Ehegattin).
Jungo Alexandra, Tafeln und Fälle zum Erbrecht, 4. Aufl., Zürich/Basel/Genf 2017 (zit. Jungo, Tafeln).
Koller Pius, Durchgriff und indirekte Zuwendungen im Erbrecht, AJP 1 (2021), S. 19-31 (zit. Koller).
Künzle Hans Rainer, Kommentierung zu Art. 517 f. ZGB, in: Heinz Hausheer/Peter Walter (Hrsg.), Berner Kommentar, Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht, Band III, 1. Abteilung, 2. Teilband, 2. Teil, Bern 2011 (zit. BK-Künzle, Art. 517 f. ZGB).
Markus Alexander, Kommentierung zu Art. 87 ZPO, in: Heinz Hausheer/Peter Walter (Hrsg.), Berner Kommentar, Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht, Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung, Band I, Bern 2012 (zit. BK-Markus, Art. 87 ZPO).
Nertz Chistoph, Kommentierung zu Art. 470 ZGB, in: Daniel Abt/Thomas Weibel (Hrsg.), Praxiskommentar Erbrecht, 5. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. Nertz, PraKomm, Art. 470 ZGB).
Nertz Chistoph, Kommentierung zu Art. 474 ZGB, in: Daniel Abt/Thomas Weibel (Hrsg.), Praxiskommentar Erbrecht, 5. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. Nertz, PraKomm, Art. 474 ZGB).
Niederer Christoph/Leistner Beatrice, Kommentierung zu Anhang Steuern, in: Daniel Abt/Thomas Weibel (Hrsg.), Praxiskommentar Erbrecht, 5. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. Niederer/Leistner, PraKomm, Anhang Steuern).
Piatti Giorgio, Kommentierung zu Vorbemerkungen zu Art. 522-533 ZGB, in: Thomas Geiser/Stephan Wolf (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Zivilgesetzbuch II, 7. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. BSK-Piatti, Vorb. zu Art. 522 ff. ZGB).
Piatti Giorgio, Kommentierung zu Art. 522 ZGB, in: Thomas Geiser/Stephan Wolf (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Zivilgesetzbuch II, 7. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. BSK-Piatti, Art. 522 ZGB).
Pichler Markus, Rechtsfragen im Zusammenhang mit den Fristen zur Ungültigkeitsklage und zur Herabsetzungsklage, Anwaltsrevue 2 (2020), S. 63-68 (zit. Pichler).
Rohner Thomas/Muster Alain, Erbrechtliche Bewertungsfragen (Teilungsmasse, Herabsetzungsmasse, Verkehrswertänderungen) und deren prozessuale Durchsetzung, AJP 10 (2014), S. 1297-1306 (zit. Rohner/Muster).
Saladin Jelena, Der Zuwendungswille (animus donandi) und seine beweisrechtliche Lage, Impulse zur praxisorientierten Rechtswissenschaft (Impulse), Band 66, Zürich/Basel/Genf 2022 (zit. Saladin).
Schiller Kaspar, Zuwendung des Nachlassüberschusses: Vermächtnis oder Erbeinsetzung, successio 3 (2018), S. 285-297 (zit. Schiller).
Schmid Jörg/Jungo Alexandra/Hürlimann-Kaup Bettina, ZGB, Das Schweizerische Zivilgesetzbuch, 15. Aufl., Zürich/Genf 2023 (zit. Schmid/Jungo/Hürlimann-Kaup, ZGB).
Spirig Sandra, Der «Doppelnachlass» – Themen und Fallstricke bei der Abwicklung von Ehegattennachlässen, successio 2 (2022), S. 96-109 (zit. Spirig).
Staehelin Daniel, Kommentierung zu Art. 470 ZGB, in: Thomas Geiser/Stephan Wolf (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Zivilgesetzbuch II, 7. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. BSK-Staehelin, Art. 470 ZGB).
Staehelin Daniel, Kommentierung zu Art. 474 ZGB, in: Thomas Geiser/Stephan Wolf (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Zivilgesetzbuch II, 7. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. BSK-Staehelin, Art. 474 ZGB).
Strazzer René, Zwei verwirkte Herabsetzungsklagen, BGer 5A_357/2016 und BGer 5A_466/2016, successio 4 (2017), S. 300-308 (zit. Strazzer).
Tarolli Nadia/Heuberger Nora, Kommentierung zu Anhang Steuern, in: Daniel Abt/Thomas Weibel (Hrsg.), Praxiskommentar Erbrecht, 5. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. Tarolli/Heuberger, PraKomm, Anhang Steuern).
Weber Marc, Kommentierung zu Art. 87 ZPO, in: Karl Spühler/Luca Tenchio/Dominik Infanger (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung, 3. Aufl., Basel 2017 (zit. BSK-Weber, Art. 87 ZPO).
Weibel Thomas, Kommentierung zu Art. 608 ZGB, in: Daniel Abt/Thomas Weibel (Hrsg.), Praxiskommentar Erbrecht, 5. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. Weibel, PraKomm, Art. 608 ZGB).
Wolf Stephan/Berger Cédric, Das Pflichtteilsvermächtnis – praktische Bedeutung und offene Fragen, AJP 3 (2023), S. 267-277 (zit. Wolf/Berger).
Wolf Stephan/Genna Gian Sandro, Schweizerisches Privatrecht, Erbrecht, Band IV/1, Basel 2012 (zit. Wolf/Genna).
Wolf Stephan/Hrubesch-Millauer Stephanie, Schweizerisches Erbrecht, 3. Aufl., Bern 2024 (zit. Wolf/Hrubesch-Millauer).
Zeiter Alexandra, Wertveränderungen zwischen Erbgang und Erbteilung, in: Paul Eitel/Alexandra Zeiter (Hrsg.), Kaleidoskop des Familien- und Erbrechts, Zürich/Basel/Genf 2014, S. 281-305 (zit. Zeiter).
Materials
Botschaft des Bundesrates an die Bundesversammlung zu einem Gesetzesentwurf enthaltend das Schweizerische Zivilgesetzbuch vom 28.5.1904, BBl 1904 IV 1 ff., abrufbar unter https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/1904/4_1_1_/de, besucht am 12.12.2024 (zit. Botschaft 1904).
Botschaft zur Änderung des Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuches (Erbrecht) vom 29.8.2018, BBl 2018 5813 ff., abrufbar unter https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/2018/2131/de, besucht am 12.12.2024 (zit. Botschaft 2018).