For a house, there is the land register. For a bank account, there is a bank that can provide information. A car is registered; a share in a company is listed in the commercial register. For a painting, there is none of this. There is no register of ownership, no official valuation, and no authority that can definitively determine what a work of art is worth. Added to this is the fact that a painting can be carried out of a flat in a matter of minutes. Anyone who has been disinherited and knows or suspects that there were paintings or other valuables in the flat therefore finds themselves in a particular predicament. The compulsory share is a claim to money. However, its amount depends on items whose value is only determined when someone sells them. It is the heir who decides when that moment comes.
A publicly appointed art expert describes quite bluntly just how widely these figures can vary. When making a purchase, a dealer typically offers around ten per cent of the insured value. According to her, there is a whole order of magnitude’s difference between the sum stated in the insurance policy and the amount that is actually paid out in the end.
A case reported in the trade press illustrates just how far things can go in extreme circumstances. A court-appointed expert valued two paintings from an estate at zero euros because their authenticity had not been established. Eleven years later, one of the two paintings was sold for four million euros. For the purposes of calculating the statutory share, the value on the date of death remained the decisive factor.
This article explains how the value of such items is determined for the purposes of the compulsory share and what information can be requested. It also explains how to establish what assets were actually present, and where the legal situation is unfavourable for those entitled to a compulsory share.
The statutory share is money, even if there are only pictures
A person who is omitted from a will does not thereby become an heir. Nor do they become a co-owner of the deceased’s estate. Instead, the law grants them a claim for money against the heirs, amounting to half of what they would have received as statutory heirs had there been no will (Section 2303 of the German Civil Code (BGB)). The specific method for calculating this share is described in a separate guide.
This has a consequence for art that surprises many people. The claim is never directed at a specific work. There is no right to choose a painting from the collection, nor is there any right to demand the handover of an object in lieu of money. This applies even if the estate consists almost entirely of paintings.
This leads to the central idea underpinning this entire article. Because the compulsory share is a sum of money, someone has to quantify the value of the assets. In the case of a savings account, the figure is shown on the statement. In the case of a terraced house, there are comparative prices and standard land values. In the case of an oil painting, there is one valuation, then a second, and the two can vary considerably.
The dispute in such cases therefore rarely centres on the share. It almost always centres on two other questions: what was actually there, and what was it worth? This article addresses both questions in turn.
How much a picture is worth in terms of the compulsory share
The value used for the calculation is that of the items on the date of death. What happens afterwards is, in principle, irrelevant. If the market for an artist’s work rises sharply after the inheritance takes effect, the beneficiary of the compulsory share does not benefit from this. If the market collapses, this does not affect them.
The Federal Court of Justice has defined what this value entails. The person entitled to a compulsory share should be in the same financial position as if the estate had been converted into cash upon the testator’s death. What is sought, therefore, is the market value. This refers to the price that could have been realised had the item been sold on the open market. It does not refer to the amount that an insurance company would pay out in the event of a claim. And it certainly does not refer to the sentimental value that a painting holds for the family.
Two figures are irrelevant to this calculation.
The first is the value stated by the testator. If the will states that a painting is worth 20,000 euros, this is not binding on anyone. The law expressly states that a valuation made by the testator is not decisive. Where necessary, the value is estimated.
The second is the purchase price.
When a flea market find is worth 400,000 euros
It does not matter how much the testator paid for a work. The only relevant factor is its value on the date of death.
This works both ways. A painting bought at a car boot sale thirty years ago for 50 euros, which is worth 400,000 euros on the date of death, is included in the calculation at 400,000 euros. Conversely, the statement „my father got that for next to nothing back then“ carries no legal weight. Nor do missing proofs of purchase rule out a high value; they merely make the investigation more time-consuming.
This makes it all the more important to take a close look at the figures circulating in connection with an image.
Four figures to paint a picture, and only one counts
There are several figures for the same work, and each one answers a different question. That is why, in discussions of this sort, figures are quoted that do not add up.
| Value | What it means |
|---|---|
| Insured value | The amount the insurance company would pay out in the event of a claim. In practice, this is higher than all other values because insurers factor in future increases in value |
| Replacement value | How much a dealer charges for a similar piece if you want to buy it |
| Estimated price in the auction catalogue | A deliberately cautious forecast by the auction house, designed to attract bidders |
| winning bid | The amount at which the hammer falls in the auction, i.e. the highest bid |
| Proceeds for the estate | The hammer price, less commission, insurance, transport and other costs |
None of these values automatically counts towards the compulsory share. The decisive factor is the amount that could have been realised had the property been sold on the date of death. Anyone who instead bases their calculation on the sum paid out under the insurance policy will usually be way off the mark. Unlike with a property, the market value in this case cannot be determined using comparative prices and official data.
The margin between the bottom two lines is often underestimated. At an auction, fees are payable on both sides. The buyer pays a buyer’s premium on top of the hammer price, i.e. a percentage surcharge for the auction house. At German auction houses, this often ranges from a good twenty per cent to over thirty per cent, depending on the price bracket. The consignor, for their part, pays a commission, the exact amount of which the major auction houses do not disclose. Added to this are insurance, transport and catalogue photographs, and, in the case of works by younger artists, a statutory levy payable to the artist or their heirs. Market observers estimate the total margin between what a buyer pays and what the seller receives at over forty per cent of the hammer price.
Anyone who has consigned a lot and withdraws it before the auction must still pay a fee. Consigning a lot is therefore effectively a one-way street.
Whether, and to what extent, such selling costs should be deducted when valuing the statutory share has not been conclusively clarified. In practice, however, something else is more important. If a figure is mentioned during discussions with the heirs, it is worth asking which of these values is being referred to. Experience shows that the two sides do not mean the same thing when they refer to it.
Why two experts arrive at very different figures
When two valuations differ significantly, it is rarely a matter of arbitrariness. In the art world, only a few factors determine the price, and even small differences can result in large sums.
A single word in the catalogue
Auction houses use a graded system of terminology. This determines the degree of certainty with which a work is attributed to an artist – a process known in the art trade as ‘attribution’. At the top of the scale is a signed work. Below that, the gradations begin; in a German catalogue, for example, they are listed as follows:
- attributed to: „In our opinion, this is probably, in whole or in part, a work by the artist named.“
- Workshop: „From the workshop of the artist named, presumably under his supervision.“
- Radius: „A contemporary work that demonstrates the influence of the artist in question.“
- According to: „a copy of a work by the specified artist.“
The structure is striking. Each tier is phrased as an opinion, not a statement of fact. This limits the auction house’s liability. In terms of value, it means that a single word can shift the attribution and, consequently, the price. No auction house publishes the exact size of the gap between the tiers.
Authenticity, catalogue raisonné and provenance
A ruling by a regional court illustrates just how much depends on authenticity. An auction house was ordered to refund a buyer around two million euros because a painting sold for just under three million euros was a forgery. The court ruled that the auction house had attributed the work without sufficient grounds and, given the scale of the transaction, should not have relied solely on art-historical analysis.
Since then, auction houses have been very cautious when it comes to works with no documented provenance. A painting whose authenticity cannot be verified is often worth closer to zero than a comparable work of verified provenance.
A catalogue raisonné and a certificate of authenticity have a similar effect. They do not increase the value, but are a prerequisite for a work to be tradable at all. Their absence destroys value, whilst their presence does not create any additional value. And a work that has not been sold at auction is subsequently considered more difficult to sell.
The same applies to the chain of ownership, known in the art trade as ‘provenance’. A gap in the provenance, particularly for the period between 1933 and 1945, depresses the price, regardless of whether anyone is making a claim. An important caveat applies to private estates. The Arbitration Tribunal for Nazi-Looted Art, which has been in operation since the end of 2025, is aimed at public bodies; private owners are not covered. The risk remains, however, because no auction house and no buyer treats it any differently. It is impossible to say in general terms how much a gap in provenance depresses the price. The most high-profile German case in recent years illustrates just how labour-intensive the process of clarification can be. Of around 1,500 confiscated works, 14 were ultimately returned.
What is actually happening in the market
To give a fair picture, we must also consider the other side of the story. Around a third of all auction lots remain unsold, and over ninety per cent of lots are sold for comparatively small sums. Only a very small proportion fetch the sums mentioned in newspaper reports.
An inherited collection is therefore not automatically a fortune. The effort is worthwhile where individual works are truly valuable, and it is precisely in such cases that valuation becomes particularly contentious.
When the authenticity remains in doubt on the day of death
If, on the date of death, it remains unclear whether a work is genuine, a particular problem arises. The cut-off date is fixed, whilst the clarification process often takes years. However, the law provides for a specific procedure for items whose value is still uncertain at that point. These are initially excluded from the valuation, but the heir must take steps to clarify their status; if the matter is resolved at a later date, a retrospective settlement will be made.
A dispute over attribution does not therefore necessarily mean that a work must be valued at zero on a permanent basis. Whether this approach applies to a picture with disputed attribution has not yet been clarified by case law. This can only be reliably assessed on a case-by-case basis and only following a review by a solicitor.
What you can find out about the estate
Anyone who has not been named as an heir does not have a key to the flat and no access to documents. They are reliant on information provided by others. The law provides them with several means of obtaining this information (Section 2314 of the German Civil Code (BGB)):
- an inventory of the estate, that is, a list in which the heir sets out all the assets and liabilities of the estate,
- the right to be present when this register is drawn up,
- a valuation, i.e. the estimation of the value of the items by an expert,
- the option of having the inventory drawn up not by the heir themselves, but by a notary.
The costs involved are generally borne by the estate, not by the beneficiary of the compulsory share personally. An exception may apply in the case of a very small estate. The heir must prove that the conditions for this are met. How claims for information can be enforced in practice if no action is taken is described elsewhere.
At this point, there are two important points that are often misunderstood.
Firstly, the heir selects the expert. It is not possible to demand a specific expert. The Federal Court of Justice has also ruled that there is no entitlement to a publicly appointed and sworn expert. The key requirement is that the expert is impartial and professionally qualified.
Secondly, this valuation does not set the value in a binding manner. It is intended to enable the entitled party to assess their situation and the risks involved. If a dispute arises later regarding payment, the value will be reassessed. In that case, a court-appointed valuation may be requested, or the party may submit their own valuation at their own expense.
In the case of art, there is an additional factor which may sound disappointing at first. Because, according to case law, the value of art can only be objectified to a limited extent, the requirements for an expert report are less stringent than, for example, for a property. Valuations from renowned auction houses may suffice. If two valuations differ significantly from one another, this is not regarded as a shortcoming, but rather as an expression of this uncertainty. A third valuation cannot usually be requested, and a valuation based on one’s own values is out of the question in any case.
However, this rule only concerns the question of when the duty to provide information has been fulfilled. It has no bearing on any subsequent dispute regarding payment. In such cases, the value must be proven independently. And, as experience shows, estimated prices in auction catalogues are deliberately set on the low side.
Two points are often taken for granted in this context. Even if the heir has already sold the collection following the death, the right to a valuation is not forfeited. The Federal Court of Justice has justified this on the grounds that, otherwise, a sale below market value could not be verified. And if a work is sold shortly after death, case law holds that the price realised is a key indicator of the value on the date of death. This works both ways. A high sale price helps the entitled party. A conspicuously low sale price to a related party can be challenged by proving that it did not correspond to the actual value.
„A collection of pictures, 3,000 euros“
„A Picasso and an art print?“ That is how one user summarised the problem in a specialist legal forum. The inventory of the estate he had in front of him included, amongst other things, the entries „old picture, new picture“.
Lot listings of this kind do not usually meet the requirements. The list must be organised and sufficiently detailed to allow the items to be identified and valued. Courts have required details regarding the size, frame, age, material and manufacturer of pictures. If a suitable description is missing, photographs must be attached. It is irrelevant whether an item is actually worthless. The heir must not pre-sort the items themselves.
A notarial register is intended to provide greater certainty than a list drawn up by the heir. To this end, the notary must determine the estate’s composition themselves. They must not confine themselves to simply recording the information provided by the heir. A Higher Regional Court has upheld a penalty payment against an heir, expressly criticising three omissions:
- The house was not inspected and the contents were not recorded.
- No investigation was carried out on site regarding valuables or vehicles.
- Previous insurance policies were not adequately clarified.
The last point is the most important one when it comes to works of art. Art insurance policies list individual items with their values.
However, the investigation has a strict limit. The notary cannot enter the heir’s private home. If the pictures have already been taken down and removed between the date of death and the inventory being drawn up, the inspection ends at the door of the heir’s home.
Case law sets a second upper limit. The Federal Court of Justice has ruled that a notary is not obliged to investigate every conceivable possibility without concrete evidence. Mere assumptions are not sufficient. In practice, this means that a blanket statement such as „I think there was more“ will not get you very far. The situation is different where specific details are provided. Six large-format oil paintings in the living room, an existing art insurance policy or participation in an exhibition are precisely the kinds of evidence that matter.
If there are still omissions, however, the procedure for a notarial inventory usually does not involve a correction, but rather an affidavit. This refers to a declaration made under oath that the information provided is, to the best of one’s knowledge, correct and complete. The threshold is low; even a mere suspicion that the information is incomplete is sufficient. An amendment to the inventory is only considered in exceptional cases, such as when entire sections are missing. Making a false statutory declaration is a criminal offence.
How to find out what was actually there
Many of those affected do not even know what was hanging in the flat. They have not been there for years, or only remember the pictures from their childhood. It is possible to identify quite precisely what does and does not help in this situation.
What makes a good trail:
- Art insurance. The strongest piece of civil evidence. Insurers require a breakdown of individual items with their values, and the documents often remain accessible for years. According to case law, it is precisely these policies that a notary must verify.
- German Sales. A free service provided by Heidelberg University Library, featuring over 15,000 digitised auction and sales catalogues, searchable in full text. The collection focuses on the period before 1950. It also includes annotated personal copies from major auction houses.
- Exhibition catalogues. They list the lenders, often in the form „Private collection, Cologne“. Catalogues raisonnés also include chains of provenance.
- Price databases. Barnebys and Findartinfo are free of charge; Artvalue can be used once you’ve registered. Lot-Tissimo, which focuses on the German market, is available for a small monthly fee.
- Lost Art and Proveana. Two free databases on provenance issues, maintained by the German Centre for Lost Cultural Property. In addition, the federal states maintain a searchable database of cultural property of national significance.
- Invoices from conservators, framers and haulage companies. They provide evidence of existence and condition, and often specify values.
- Customs and authorisation documents. Imports give rise to records relating to import VAT, whilst exports subject to authorisation result in files being held by the regional authorities.
- Photos. From estate agent adverts, magazine profiles, birthday parties. There are pictures hanging on the living room walls.
- Loan agreements with museums and the auction houses’ results archives. Museums keep careful records of their lenders, and the institutions’ archives are freely accessible.
What experience has shown doesn’t help:
- Searching for the buyer’s name. Auction databases show that a work has been sold and for what price. They almost never state who bought it.
- Bank safety deposit boxes. Access is granted through the heir. A person entitled to a compulsory share has a financial claim, but no right of access in their own right.
- Bonded warehouses in Geneva or Luxembourg. Without state investigative powers, nothing can be uncovered there. Assets are routinely held through shell companies. In one well-known case, even public prosecutors released a seized painting due to a lack of evidence.
- Art abroad in general. The investigation ends at the boundary of a notary’s jurisdiction.
- House clearance and decluttering services. They document virtually nothing.
- Compiling catalogues raisonnés on your own. There is no central, free directory of catalogues raisonnés. Access is practically limited to art libraries.
What can be found in this way is rarely conclusive evidence in itself. However, it is precisely these concrete leads without which neither a notary nor a court will proceed with further investigations.
What is the best course of action now?
In two minutes, you’ll know where you stand. All it takes is five answers – no contact details or supporting documents required – and the results will appear on screen straight away.
This is what your analysis shows
When the collection has long since been given away
Often, there is nothing left at the time of death. The paintings have been with the son for years, and the estate consists of an empty bank account. For such cases, there is the ‘supplement to the compulsory share’ – an additional entitlement that retroactively takes gifts into account (Section 2325 of the German Civil Code (BGB)).
Gifts made during the ten years prior to death are taken into account, though not at their full value throughout that period. A gift made in the year immediately preceding death is counted in full. For each subsequent year, the proportion is reduced by one-tenth, and gifts made more than ten years previously are disregarded. This does not apply to gifts made to a spouse. In such cases, the period only begins upon the dissolution of the marriage, meaning that, upon the testator’s death, there is effectively no ten-year limit.
In one respect, the regulation clearly works against the rightful owner, and this has a particularly significant impact in the case of art.
Calculation example: Why the increase in value isn’t taken into account
A widowed father gives his elder daughter an oil painting by a well-known post-war artist. At the time, it is worth 200,000 euros. When the father dies years later, its value stands at 900,000 euros. The younger daughter has been disinherited.
For the calculation, two values are compared: the value at the time of the gift and the value on the date of death. The original value is adjusted for inflation and then stands at around 270,000 euros. The lower of the two values is used, i.e. €270,000 rather than €900,000. As a result, the increase in value of around €630,000 remains with the daughter who received the gift.
The figures in this example are arbitrary and are provided for illustrative purposes only.
In the case of property, this effect is barely noticeable. With art, however, it is the main factor, because the increases in value can be very substantial.
How much of a gift ultimately remains also depends on a preliminary question. This is: when did the ten-year period actually begin to run? It only begins once the testator has actually handed over the item. The situation is clear for land. If the donor retains the right of usufruct – that is, the right to continue using the land to the full extent – the period does not normally commence. A mere right of residence is sufficient for this only in exceptional cases. Whether the same applies if a gifted painting continues to hang in the testator’s living room has not yet been decided. There are good reasons to suggest it does, as nothing has changed economically for the testator. This can only be reliably assessed on a case-by-case basis.
According to case law, even a trust does not offer certain protection. The Federal Court of Justice treats the transfer of assets into a trust as a gift, meaning that they can be reclaimed via the supplementary claim. The point at which the ten-year period begins to run is a matter of dispute amongst experts.
One point may seem unassuming, yet it is the most challenging. If there is nothing left in the estate, a claim may be brought directly against the recipient of the gift. For this claim, the limitation period begins on the date of death, regardless of whether the entitled person is even aware of the gift. It may therefore become time-barred before anyone finds out about it. The situation is different for a claim against the heir. In that case, the standard limitation period of three years applies from the end of the year in which the entitled party became aware of the inheritance and of their disinheritance. The supplementary claim in relation to gifts is described in detail in a separate guide.
Three things that are almost always overlooked
A permanent loan. This refers to a contract under which a collector transfers their works to a museum for a long period. The legal consequence is crucial. In the case of a loan, ownership is not transferred; the testator remains the owner and may reclaim the work. A painting that has been hanging in a museum for fifteen years therefore remains part of the estate and is, in principle, included in its entirety. This arrangement is attractive to collectors because inheritance tax law provides far-reaching exemptions for art, which can be achieved in practice through a contract with a museum. This is not manipulation, but a legitimate arrangement. For those entitled to a compulsory share, however, it remains the most significant blind spot. Anyone who merely asks what was hanging in the home will learn nothing of this. Whether a transfer described as a permanent loan was, in fact, a gift in a particular case depends on the contract.
Art in a company. If the collection does not belong to the deceased personally, but to a limited liability company (GmbH) or a family-owned company, it is the company share that is valued for the purposes of the compulsory share, rather than the individual painting. This presents a pitfall. Shares are usually valued on the basis of their income, and a company that holds only paintings generates no income. Assets that do not serve the business are therefore usually valued separately. However, there is no ruling that expressly stipulates this for the statutory share. This is a separate calculation with its own pitfalls and must be clarified by a solicitor on a case-by-case basis.
Art abroad. A notary cannot carry out an inspection outside their jurisdiction, so a painting in a Schweizer customs warehouse is, in practice, never physically inspected. Added to this is a gap in the documentation. An export licence is only required for works of art above a certain age and of a high value. Below these thresholds, a work can cross the border without a file being created. Above these thresholds, the opposite applies. In such cases, authorisation files are created by the regional authorities, and these are often overlooked during searches.
If the heir is unable or unwilling to pay
The compulsory share is payable immediately. An heir who has inherited only paintings and no money therefore finds themselves under pressure. They may apply for a deferral of payment if immediate settlement would constitute an unreasonable hardship due to the nature of the estate’s assets. However, the law is primarily concerned here with the family home and assets that form the family’s economic basis. An art collection is typically neither of these. It is, in fact, precisely the sort of asset that can be readily realised.
A look at tax law explains why things often get tricky nonetheless. There are far-reaching inheritance tax exemptions for art. However, these are withdrawn retrospectively if the works are sold within ten years of acquisition. So if the heir sells paintings in order to pay out the compulsory share, they lose the tax exemption. This explains the other party’s behaviour and shows why there is so often talk of a deferral.
Conversely, there is a point that is often misrepresented. A tax exemption does not reduce the statutory share. It applies solely to the tax; the statutory share is determined solely by the value on the date of death. The same applies to the allowances available for household effects and other movable property. They reduce the tax, not the entitlement.
If the heir fails to act, the courts may impose a penalty payment to compel them to submit the inventory or to have the value of the estate assessed. However, they are granted a reasonable period of time – usually a few months – to draw up a notarised inventory. Those who do not wish to wait indefinitely therefore often opt to bring a claim that combines a request for information and payment in a single set of proceedings. This also suspends the limitation period.
Which of these apply to jewellery, watches, classic cars and collections?
Essentially, the same rules apply to other valuables as to works of art. The value on the date of death is decisive; it is the market value that is sought, not the insured value, and a valuation provided by the testator is not binding in this case either. In the estate inventory, a collective entry is just as insufficient as it is for paintings. „Miscellaneous jewellery“ is no more informative than „Miscellaneous paintings“. The rights to information are also the same, including the valuation at the estate’s expense.
There are three key differences that are important for those affected.
With jewellery, the material itself provides a solid floor value. Gold and gemstones have a verifiable market value on the date of death, regardless of how the market currently values a particular design or brand. With art, no such floor value exists. A painting may be worth nothing on the date of death, but a ring made from scrap gold will not. However, the same caution applies with regard to the upper limit as with art. With jewellery, too, the realisable sale value is regularly significantly lower than the sum stated in an insurance policy.
Classic cars are licensed and therefore registered. Unlike with a painting, there is an official record that allows their existence and ownership to be traced. Furthermore, the courts have expressly criticised cases where a notary has failed to verify the presence of valuables and vehicles on site. Anyone who knows that something was in the garage is thereby providing a useful clue.
Collections of coins, stamps or similar items present a problem of their own. The catalogue value of a collection is not its selling price. In the case of very large collections, the sheer volume itself depresses the price that can be achieved, as the market cannot absorb them all at once. However, this effect has primarily been documented abroad. Under German law on compulsory inheritance shares, it is an observation drawn from the market rather than an established legal position, which is why no blanket discount can be derived from it.
As far as costs are concerned, there are at least some guidelines. According to the Chambers of Industry and Commerce, hourly rates of between 50 and 150 euros are standard for private valuation assignments. For expert reports commissioned by a court, the rates are set by law and are in a similar range. However, there is no evidence in Deutschland of fees based on a percentage of the estimated value.
Anyone needing a valuation has four options. Publicly appointed and sworn experts can be found via the Chambers of Industry and Commerce’s expert search service. The Federal Association of Experts has its own specialist division for art, antiques and jewellery. Auction houses often provide valuations free of charge, but they have a vested interest in the item being consigned to them. There are also independent art experts.
What does not exist, however, is an official body that determines the value of art or other valuables. This distinguishes this field from property valuation, where committees of valuers and official databases of purchase prices are available.
Common points of conflict and mistakes
Keep the insured value in line with the estate’s value. The figure stated in the policy is usually significantly higher than the amount that could be realised from a sale. Anyone who bases their calculations on this is building up an expectation that cannot be met later on.
Accepting a lump-sum valuation. „A collection of pictures, 3,000 euros“ is not sufficient. Courts have required that individual items be described in terms of the characteristics that determine their value; in the case of pictures, this means their size, frame, age and material.
Expressing assumptions rather than evidence. According to case law, stating „There must have been more than that“ does not get us any further. A specific detail, however, does – for example, six large oil paintings in the living room or an existing art insurance policy.
Just think of the flat. Items on long-term loan to museums, works with restorers and paintings abroad do not appear on that list. They are nevertheless part of the estate, and without any indication of this, even a solicitor will not look for them.
Do not consider a work sold to be a closed matter. Even if the heir has long since sold the collection, the right to a valuation remains. The price realised is a point of reference, but not the end of the matter.
Hoping for a valuation report that reflects one’s own expectations. The heir selects the valuer, and there is no entitlement to a specific valuation figure. As a rule, it is not possible to request a third valuation report either.
Consider the values stated in the will to be binding. The testator’s valuation is expressly not to be taken into account for the purposes of calculation, however clearly it may be worded. The same applies to the price he himself once paid.
In the case of a gifted collection, it is best to wait and see. Where a claim is made against a recipient of a gift, the limitation period begins to run from the date of death, even if no one is yet aware of the gift. The claim may become time-barred before it is even discovered.
Frequently Asked Questions
The heir says the paintings are worthless. What can I do?
In this situation, the law provides for several options. The values can be determined by an impartial expert, and the costs are generally borne by the estate. Furthermore, the items must be described in the inventory in such a way that a valuation is possible at all; in the case of pictures, this means providing details of size, frame, age and material. If there remains a suspicion that something is missing, an affidavit confirming the accuracy of the information may be considered. Whether and in what order these steps are advisable should be assessed by a solicitor.
Does a painting count as household contents?
This is a matter to be decided on a case-by-case basis. It is significant because, under certain conditions, the surviving spouse may exclude household items from the calculation. This refers to items used for domestic purposes, not investment or collectable items. In the case of a collection, there are therefore strong arguments against treating it as household effects. However, there is no clear ruling on this distinction with regard to the compulsory share.
Who is paying for the valuation of the art collection?
In principle, the estate. The costs of the valuation are to be borne by the estate and do not form part of the private expenses of the person entitled to a compulsory share. There may be an exception to this in the case of a very small estate, if the costs are disproportionate. However, the heir must prove that the conditions for this are met. On the other hand, anyone who commissions an additional valuation report themselves in order to be able to present their own figure must bear these costs themselves.
The heir has already sold the collection. Do I still have any claims?
Yes. The right to a valuation is not forfeited as a result of a sale. The Federal Court of Justice has justified this on the grounds that, otherwise, it would not be possible to verify whether the property was sold below its value. The price realised is a key indicator of the value on the date of death, particularly if the sale took place shortly afterwards. However, this indicator is rebuttable. Anyone who can demonstrate that the proceeds did not correspond to the actual value – for example, in the case of a sale to a related party – may be able to obtain a valuation.
Do I have to accept the heir’s expert report?
Such a valuation report may suffice to determine whether the obligation to provide information has been fulfilled. In the case of art, the requirements under case law are less stringent than for other items in an estate, and even a valuation by a reputable auction house may be sufficient. A second valuation at the estate’s expense is not usually provided. However, the valuation does not provide a definitive ruling on the dispute regarding payment. In such cases, the value is reassessed, and a different valuation may also be submitted.
My father gave away his collection years ago. Will I still get anything from it?
This is possible within ten years prior to death, although the value of the gift is taken into account to a lesser extent with each passing year. The lower of two values is used: either the value of the gift adjusted for inflation, or the value on the date of death. The starting point of the time limit is important. The period only begins once the testator has actually handed over the item. A separate period applies to the recipient, which begins on the date of death.
Support when things get tough
Cases involving works of art are more complex than other cases concerning the compulsory share. Expert reports cost money before any decision has been made. The estate is often illiquid because its value lies in tangible assets. The heir is often only able to pay once they have sold the assets, but for tax reasons they are particularly reluctant to do so. As a result, there are lengthy disputes over the value, sometimes spanning several levels of jurisdiction.
In this situation, there are two basic options available to those affected. One is to pursue the claim with financial backing. In this case, the costs of the proceedings are covered, and a fee is only payable if the claim is successful. The other is to sell the claim. This results in a fixed sum being paid out in the short term, which is less than the full value of the claim because the buyer assumes the risk and the time involved.
Which approach is best depends on how reliable the information regarding the estate is, how far discussions with the heirs have progressed, and how much time someone is willing to invest. Erbfinanz is not a solicitor and does not provide legal representation. Legal responsibility always lies with a solicitor; in matters of inheritance law, this is usually a solicitor specialising in inheritance law.
Note on the content of this guide
The articles in this guide are intended to provide general information on inheritance law matters. They do not constitute legal advice and are no substitute for advice in individual cases. Whether a claim exists, and if so, to what extent, always depends on the circumstances of the specific case. Only a solicitor can provide a definitive assessment; in matters of inheritance law, this is usually a specialist solicitor in inheritance law.
All content is carefully researched and regularly reviewed. However, legislation and case law are subject to change. We are therefore unable to guarantee that the content is accurate, complete or up to date.
Note on the use of artificial intelligence
The articles in this guide are produced with the help of artificial intelligence and are editorially reviewed and approved.