Anyone who has been omitted from a will under the Schweiz system and is looking to sell their compulsory share will almost inevitably end up dealing with German providers and German rules. Under the Deutschland system, the compulsory share is a monetary claim against the heirs, which can be assigned in the same way as an outstanding invoice. Under Schweiz law, it is something different, and this difference is not a mere legal technicality. It determines from what point in time your claim can be sold at all, what you will receive in return, and what you should have sorted out beforehand.
The decisive factor here is not your own place of residence, but the deceased’s last place of residence. Anyone who last lived in Schweiz will be succeeded in accordance with Schweiz inheritance law, even if they were German and even if their children live in Hamburg (Art. 90(1) IPRG). Conversely, German law applies to an estate in Deutschland, even if a child lives in Zurich. This article deals with the first case. For the German equivalent, there is a separate guide on the sale of the compulsory portion, and the differences between the two legal systems are summarised in the article on compulsory portion law in Deutschland and Schweiz.
Key points at a glance
- Under the Schweiz system, the compulsory share is not a financial claim against the heirs, but a protected share of the estate. Anyone who has been disinherited must first establish their status as an heir before any discussion of money can take place.
- The time limit for this is one year from the date on which the infringement became known; regardless of this, all claims lapse after ten years (Art. 533 of the Swiss Civil Code). This is a limitation period and cannot be suspended by reminders or agreements.
- Since the reform of inheritance law on 1 January 2023, the compulsory share has amounted to half of the statutory inheritance entitlement (Art. 471 of the Swiss Civil Code). For children, it was thus reduced from three-quarters to half, whilst for parents it was abolished altogether.
- A purchaser cannot bring an action for reduction on your behalf. Furthermore, an heir who assigns their share to a third party does not thereby make that person a co-heir (Art. 635(2) of the Swiss Civil Code).
- A claim can be sold outright, particularly if it has been quantified, i.e. following an agreement, a partition agreement or a court judgement. In such cases, it constitutes an ordinary claim and is freely assignable (Art. 164 et seq. OR).
- The Schweiz does not provide for a right of first refusal for co-heirs, as recognised under German law. Nor does the transfer need to be notarised; the written form is sufficient.
- Prior to the testator’s death, a sale concluded without the future testator’s involvement is not binding, and any sums paid may be reclaimed (Art. 636 of the Swiss Civil Code).
Under the Schweiz system, the compulsory share is not a sum of money, but a place in the community of heirs
The German model is easy to explain. Anyone who is disinherited is excluded from the estate but is entitled to a payment from the heirs. They are a creditor, nothing more, and this claim can be sold just like any other debt.
The Schweiz works the other way round. Here, the law does not protect a sum of money, but rather the status of an heir. Upon death, the entire estate passes by operation of law to the heirs, who hold it jointly as a community of heirs and may only dispose of it jointly (Articles 560 and 602 of the Swiss Civil Code). Anyone entitled to a reserved share is, in principle, included in this group. Since 1 January 2023, only descendants and the spouse or registered partner have been entitled to a reserved share, in each case amounting to half of their statutory claim to inheritance (Art. 470(1) and 471 of the Swiss Civil Code). Parents have lost their statutory share as a result of this amendment. Siblings are no longer entitled to a statutory share, and cohabiting partners inherit nothing in the absence of a will in any case.
There’s a catch. Anyone who has been completely omitted from a will is not, at first, an heir, but merely what legal doctrine and the Federal Supreme Court refer to as a ‘virtual heir’. They are standing at the door with a key; it is up to them to unlock it. This is the purpose of the action for reduction (Art. 522 et seq. of the Swiss Civil Code), by which the disposition is amended to the extent necessary to restore the compulsory share. Only the court judgement, or an agreement with the heirs, confers the status of heir. The Federal Supreme Court has confirmed this on several occasions and drawn specific conclusions from it, such as that the person who has been passed over cannot demand a public inventory of the estate as long as they are not an heir (BGE 143 III 369).
In terms of the sale, this means that as long as this step has not been taken, there is no sum of money that can be transferred. There is a legal entitlement that has yet to be converted into money. Anyone who skips this intermediate step is selling a hope, and the price reflects this.
Being disinherited is not the same as being overlooked
In everyday language, any unequal treatment in a will is referred to as ‘disinheritance’. The law, however, uses the term in a more specific sense, and it is worth noting the difference.
The usual scenario is simply a failure to provide. The testator has bequeathed more than was permissible, thereby infringing the statutory share. A reduction provides a remedy for this.
Disinheritance in the technical sense is something else entirely. It completely deprives the heir of their statutory share and is permitted only within very narrow limits, namely in the event of a serious criminal offence against the testator or a person close to them, or in the event of a serious breach of family law obligations (Art. 477 of the Swiss Civil Code). In addition, there is a special case: if there are certificates of loss against a descendant, half of their statutory share may be withheld if it is to be passed on to their own children (Art. 480 of the Swiss Civil Code).
A formal requirement is crucial in cases of disinheritance. The reason must be stated in the disposition itself. If it is entirely absent, the disinheritance is invalid from the outset. If a reason is given and the person concerned disputes it, the burden of proof lies with the person who stands to benefit from the disinheritance. If they fail to do so, the provision remains valid only to the extent that it is consistent with the disposable portion (Art. 479 of the Swiss Civil Code). A statement such as „I disinherit my son; he knows why“ is therefore rarely sufficient. It is worth taking a close look at the will before assuming that one has been disinherited.
The path to receiving your payout, step by step
The procedure is essentially the same in all cantons, even though the competent authority may be called a district court, an inheritance office or a local authority.
- The will is to be read out. The authority shall issue the decision within one month of the submission of the application and shall send a copy to all parties concerned, including the statutory heirs who have been passed over (Articles 557 and 558 of the Swiss Civil Code). This letter generally marks the start of the time limits.
- The clock is ticking. Once it becomes known that the right to a compulsory share has been infringed, there is a one-year period within which to seek a reduction (Art. 533 of the Swiss Civil Code). In parallel, there is also a one-year time limit for bringing an action to set aside the will if there are doubts as to the testator’s mental capacity or the form of the will (Art. 519 et seq. and 521 of the Swiss Civil Code).
- First backup. As a statutory heir, you may contest the entitlement of the appointed heirs. If, as a result, the composition of the community of heirs is no longer immediately clear, the authorities will not issue a certificate of inheritance for the time being (Art. 559 of the Swiss Civil Code), and without this document, the heirs cannot access bank accounts or the land register. However, a mere assertion is not sufficient for this, and the authorities will usually set a deadline within which the matter must be brought before the courts. This buys time and strengthens your negotiating position, but it does not replace legal proceedings.
- Negotiate, but with a safety net. Most cases are settled. However, negotiations do not always last for the full year. Anyone who realises the deadline is approaching should submit an application for mediation. This places the matter before the courts and preserves the time limit whilst negotiations continue. If mediation fails, however, there are then only three months left to file a claim with the court (Art. 209 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Anyone who allows this deadline to pass finds themselves back at square one, and the one-year time limit will usually have expired by then.
- Determination of heirship, followed by partition. Once an agreement has been reached or a judgement handed down, you become a co-heir. Only then does the distribution take place, and any co-heir may demand the partition of the estate, provided they are not bound to the joint ownership by contract or by law (Art. 604 of the Swiss Civil Code).
- Payout. Money changes hands at the end of the division, not before.
It is rare for there to be weeks between step one and step six. If a mutually agreed solution is reached, a few months is a realistic timeframe. If, however, the status of heir must first be established through legal proceedings and the division of the estate subsequently enforced, this involves two successive sets of proceedings, and it is not unusual for the process to take several years.
How much is your statutory share under Schweizer law?
Before you consider selling or enforcing your rights, you need to have a rough idea of the scale involved. The free compulsory portion calculator checks, in just a few clicks, whether you are in principle entitled under the Schweizer law and how much your share is likely to be.
Get a result in under two minutes, without having to provide any details of your assets.
The four areas where things get a bit tight in practice
The figure is easy to work out. What happens in the end is decided elsewhere.
The one-year deadline is unforgiving
The law refers to a limitation period; however, the Federal Supreme Court and legal scholarship treat the time limit set out in Article 533 of the Swiss Civil Code as a forfeiture period. The difference is significant in practical terms. A forfeiture period cannot be interrupted by debt enforcement proceedings or an acknowledgement of debt; it does not stand still, and the court takes it into account ex officio. Even a promise by the other party not to invoke it offers only tenuous protection. Anyone who allows the time limit to lapse loses their status as an heir permanently. Irrespective of whether one is aware of it or not, the time limit expires after ten years: in the case of wills, calculated from the date of probate; in the case of inter vivos gifts, from the date of death.
A recent ruling by the Federal Supreme Court has clarified when the time limit begins, thereby providing some leeway. According to this ruling, the time limit runs separately for each recipient of a bequest, and it only begins once the beneficiary knows who has been named as a beneficiary and the approximate value of the estate. Anyone who only finds out at a late stage about a gift made to a third party can therefore still make a claim against that person in good time. Nevertheless, one should not rely on this.
Matrimonial property law takes precedence over inheritance law
The most common calculation error arises from the estate itself. In the case of married testators, the matrimonial property is first divided, and only the remaining portion is bequeathed. Under the standard matrimonial property regime of participation in acquisitions, each spouse retains their separate property – that is, primarily what they brought into the marriage or inherited themselves. Assets acquired during the marriage are divided, as each spouse is entitled to half of the other’s share (Art. 215 of the Swiss Civil Code). Only what remains on the deceased’s side after this is the estate. A marital estate worth two million Swiss francs can thus become an estate worth less than one million, even without a will.
This is exacerbated by the ‘most-favoured’ clause in the marriage contract, under which the entire estate is allocated to the surviving spouse. Since 2023, the law has explicitly clarified that any share exceeding half is not included in the calculation of the compulsory share for joint children. However, such an agreement must not affect the compulsory shares of children who are not joint children (Art. 216 of the Swiss Civil Code). A child from a previous relationship who is affected therefore has a means of influence here that joint children do not have. However, this also requires that the reduction be actively claimed within the same one-year time limit.
Pension savings and insurance policies only count to a limited extent
Pillar 3a assets do not form part of the estate; they pass directly to the beneficiaries. Nevertheless, since 2023, they have been included in the calculation of the statutory share and are subject to reduction: in the case of bank foundations, by their value; in the case of insurance policies, by their surrender value (Articles 476 and 529 of the Swiss Civil Code). According to the prevailing view, occupational pension scheme assets are excluded from this calculation.
The surrender value is the key factor here. A pure life assurance policy has virtually no surrender value, but pays out a substantial sum. Anyone who takes out such a policy in favour of a third party can, in this way, significantly reduce the value of the compulsory share. However, this is not without limits, as anyone who demonstrably acts to circumvent the protection of the compulsory share may have the disposal of assets held against them for an indefinite period (Art. 527(4) of the Swiss Civil Code). Proving this, however, is difficult, which explains why a statutory share that looks substantial on paper sometimes corresponds to a meagre estate.
Gifts made during one’s lifetime can be challenged for longer than many people realise
Gifts that are freely revocable and those made within the five years prior to death may be reduced. However, this applies without any time limit to gifts made in lieu of an inheritance share, to legacy settlements and to disposals of assets that were clearly intended to circumvent the protection of the compulsory share (Art. 527 of the Swiss Civil Code). A property transferred to a child fifteen years ago may therefore still be relevant. The Schweiz does not provide for a reduction model as found in German law.
If the estate consists mainly of a property
This is the usual situation, and it is often misrepresented. A person entitled to a compulsory share cannot simply demand that the house be sold. What they can do is more significant. As a co-heir, they are entitled to equal treatment in the division of the estate, and if the heirs cannot agree on the allocation of a particular item, it must be sold and the proceeds divided. At the request of an heir, the sale takes place by auction; in the event of disagreement, the authorities determine whether the auction is to be public or restricted to the heirs (Art. 612 of the Swiss Civil Code). In 2017, the Federal Supreme Court clarified that the partition court is also bound by these rules and may not, at its discretion, allocate a property to the heir residing therein (BGE 143 III 425).
This gives the person entitled to a compulsory share a real means of exerting pressure during negotiations, and that is precisely why many of these cases end with a cash payment rather than a sale. However, this leverage does not automatically come into play. The testator may have laid down binding provisions regarding the division of the estate, which everyone must adhere to (Art. 608 of the Swiss Civil Code). The surviving spouse has a separate right to be allocated the house and household effects, subject to set-off, or alternatively to be granted usufruct or a right of residence (Art. 612a of the Swiss Civil Code); children do not have this right. Furthermore, for agricultural businesses, the special rules of agricultural land law apply, under which the farm is allocated to the owner-farmer at its income value (Art. 619 of the Swiss Civil Code). This significantly reduces the statutory share.
What can be assigned and what cannot
So, on to the question itself. It is worth distinguishing between three basic scenarios, as they differ considerably.
It cannot take effect before the testator’s death. Contracts relating to an inheritance that has not yet fallen due, which a future heir concludes without the testator’s involvement or consent, are not binding, and any payments already made may be reclaimed (Art. 636 of the Swiss Civil Code). Such an agreement only becomes effective if the testator expressly consents to it. The usual procedure during the testator’s lifetime is therefore a different one, namely an agreement to waive inheritance or a purchase of the inheritance from the testator themselves, in return for a settlement, which must be notarised (Art. 495 and 512 of the Swiss Civil Code).
A share in an inheritance may be transferred, but this confers little on the purchaser. Anyone who is already an heir may transfer their share to a third party. The law draws a clear line here: such a contract does not give the third party any right to participate in the distribution of the estate, but only a claim to the share allocated to the heir following the distribution (Art. 635(2) of the Swiss Civil Code). The purchaser therefore does not become a member of the community of heirs. They cannot bring an action for reduction; this remains the prerogative of the heir (BGE 85 II 603). The seller formally remains an heir and must continue to participate. The purchaser is not entirely without protection, however, as anyone who has acquired a share of the estate may request that the competent authority participate in the partition in place of the heir (Art. 609 of the Swiss Civil Code). Nevertheless, such a transaction only becomes viable with clear contractual arrangements, such as a power of attorney to act on behalf of the heir during the division of the estate. That said, the law does not require any specific form; written form is sufficient, even where the estate includes immovable property.
A quantified claim is an ordinary claim. As soon as the dispute has given rise to a specific claim for payment – whether through an out-of-court settlement, a partition agreement or a court judgement – the normal rules governing assignment apply. It must be agreed in writing; the debtor’s consent is not required, and notification to the debtor ensures that they can only pay the new creditor (Art. 164 et seq. OR). The seller is liable for the existence of the claim, but not for the debtor’s ability to pay (Art. 171 of the Swiss Code of Obligations). This is the clearest arrangement and the one commonly used in practice.
A particular arrangement warrants a closer look at the will. Some testators do not name the person entitled to a compulsory share as an heir, but instead bequeath to them the value of their compulsory share. According to the prevailing view today, this is permissible because the law only protects those who receive less, in value, than their statutory share (Art. 522(1) of the Swiss Civil Code). However, the matter has not yet been conclusively settled by the highest courts. If this view is correct, the beneficiary is not an heir but a creditor of the community of heirs, and their claim is, from the outset, an ordinary monetary claim. Anyone in this situation is closer to the German model than the Swiss one and can therefore discuss a sale at an earlier stage. Whether a disposition is to be interpreted as an appointment of an heir or as a legacy depends on its interpretation and not on the choice of words used.
One point that is regularly misrepresented in German guidebooks: there is no statutory right of pre-emption for co-heirs, as provided for in Section 2034 of the German Civil Code (BGB), under Schweizer inheritance law. The co-heirs are neither required to consent to the sale nor can they step into the contract. Their protection lies in the fact that the purchaser does not become a member of the community of heirs.
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
What a buyer pays and what the price depends on
An example helps to illustrate the scale involved. A widowed father leaves behind two adult children and an estate worth 800,000 Swiss francs after debts have been settled. In his will, he names his son as sole heir. Without a will, his daughter would have inherited half; her statutory share is therefore a quarter of the estate, amounting to 200,000 Swiss francs. This is the nominal value under discussion.
The price a buyer offers for this is lower, and there are clear reasons for this. The buyer bears the costs and the risk of enforcing the claim, the risk that the estate may be smaller than anticipated, and the waiting time until the estate is divided. The more of these issues that have already been clarified, the smaller the discount will be. The leverage therefore lies almost entirely with the seller.
Anything that removes uncertainty tends to drive up the price. A clarified or undisputed status as an heir, a signed settlement agreement, an extract from the land register, a reliable valuation of the property, and supporting documents for major gifts made in recent years. The opposite factors tend to drive prices down: a one-year deadline expiring in a few weeks’ time; an estate about which no one is providing any information; a right of usufruct held by the surviving spouse over the children’s entire share; a co-heir who is blocking any agreement; or assets held abroad.
This is precisely where a structural weakness in the Schweizer law lies, and it needs to be highlighted. Anyone who has been bypassed has virtually no right to information prior to bringing a claim. They do not receive a certificate of inheritance in their own name, are not entitled to a public inventory, and banks routinely refuse to provide information without proof of identity. They must therefore take action before they know everything. They can usually request a provisional inventory of the estate’s assets (Art. 553 of the Swiss Civil Code), and during the proceedings themselves, they have a far-reaching right to information vis-à-vis co-heirs and, in some cases, third parties. Before that, the information available is scant. Anyone who sells their share right at the start therefore pays the price for this uncertainty.
Sell, enforce the sale yourself, or reach an agreement with the other heirs
The most common – and often the best – option under Section Schweiz is the last one in this list, namely a settlement by the co-heirs themselves. Anyone who assigns their share to a co-heir is excluded from the community of heirs with effect in rem; written form is sufficient (Art. 635(1) of the Swiss Civil Code), and the co-heir often has a strong personal interest in retaining the property. This solution generally yields a higher return than a sale to an outside party, as no third party needs to factor in any risks. However, anyone negotiating such a deal should be aware that they remain jointly and severally liable to the estate’s creditors unless the latter have given their express or implied consent. This liability becomes time-barred five years after the division; for claims arising at a later date, the limitation period runs correspondingly later (Art. 639 of the Swiss Civil Code).
Enforcing a claim at one’s own expense yields the full amount if successful, but requires an upfront investment and a great deal of patience. As a general rule, legal proceedings under inheritance law are preceded by an attempt at conciliation. The parties may only jointly waive this requirement where the value in dispute is 100,000 Swiss francs or more; the claimant may unilaterally waive it, amongst other circumstances, if the opposing party is domiciled abroad (Art. 199 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code). This is often the case where the parties are involved in Deutschland proceedings. Furthermore, since 1 January 2025, courts may, in ordinary proceedings, demand no more than half of the estimated court costs as an advance payment; in conciliation and appeal proceedings, however, the full advance payment remains possible (Art. 98 ZPO). The actual risk lies at the end of the process in any case. The losing party bears the court costs and the compensation payable to the opposing party. For a claim value of 200,000 Swiss francs, these two items together amount to roughly between 30,000 and 50,000 Swiss francs, depending on the canton and the amount of work involved; one’s own lawyers’ fees are added to this. One should not rely on legal aid in this context, as it does not exempt the party from paying compensation to the opposing party anyway, and a prospective share of an inheritance may be counted as an asset.
Selling is the third option and the only one that reverses the order. You receive the money first, and the dispute comes afterwards – and it no longer concerns you. In return, you hand over a portion of the sum and waive any right to a subsequent adjustment, even if the estate turns out to be larger than expected.
Which approach is right depends on two practical questions. How urgently do you need the money, and how much time and energy is the dispute costing you? If the answers to both questions are straightforward, there is a strong case for reaching an agreement or enforcing your position. If either of them is different, selling is a sensible option. In almost every situation, the only downside is simply waiting, as the one-year deadline continues to run regardless.
If your payout is blocked or you wish to call it a day
Normally, the statutory share is settled and paid out amongst the parties involved. Things become difficult if the heirs put up resistance, undervalue the estate, or drag the matter out until deadlines loom. That is precisely when Erbfinanz steps in to help. We can bear the cost risk involved in enforcement, so that you do not have to pay for solicitors, expert reports and court costs up front. Legal representation is always provided by a specialist solicitor. If a swift resolution is more important to you than receiving the maximum amount, we may also consider purchasing your claim, depending on the stage of the proceedings.
We’ll clarify which of the two options suits your situation and when it becomes possible during a no-obligation enquiry. It’s free, discreet and takes just a few minutes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sell my statutory share before my status as an heir has been clarified?
Contractually, many things are possible, but economically it is rarely worthwhile. A buyer cannot bring an action for a reduction on your behalf, nor does the assignment make them a member of the community of heirs (Art. 635(2) of the Swiss Civil Code). They must therefore rely on you to conduct the proceedings or to authorise them to do so. This risk is reflected in the price. As a general rule, it makes more sense to clarify your status as an heir first – or at least to ensure that the matter is pending in court within the prescribed time limit – and then to discuss a sale.
Do the co-heirs have to give their consent, and do they have a right of first refusal?
They are not required to give their consent, and Schweizer inheritance law does not recognise a statutory right of pre-emption for co-heirs. This notion originates from German law and is often incorrectly applied to Schweiz. Under Schweizer law, the protection afforded to co-heirs lies in the fact that an outside purchaser does not become a member of the community of heirs and has no say in the distribution of the estate.
Does the assignment require a notary?
No. A simple written form is sufficient for the assignment of a share in an estate, and according to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, this also applies where immovable property forms part of the estate. Similarly, the assignment of a quantified claim must also be agreed in writing (Art. 165 of the Swiss Code of Obligations). By contrast, a contract of inheritance and a renunciation of inheritance must be notarised whilst the testator is still alive (Art. 512 of the Swiss Civil Code).
Can I sell my future statutory share whilst my parents are still alive?
In principle, not to a third party. Contracts relating to an inheritance that has not yet accrued are not binding without the involvement and consent of the testator, and any sums already paid may be reclaimed (Art. 636 of the Swiss Civil Code). During the testator’s lifetime, the usual procedure involves entering into an agreement to renounce inheritance or a contract to purchase the inheritance with the testator themselves, which must be notarised.
What happens if I miss the one-year deadline?
You will then lose the opportunity to contest your status as an heir, and with it your statutory share. The time limit set out in Article 533 of the Swiss Civil Code is treated as a forfeiture period; the court takes it into account ex officio, and it cannot be interrupted in the same way as a limitation period. Although a claim for reduction may be raised as a defence at any time, this presupposes that you are in possession of assets from the estate. Anyone who is completely excluded from the estate does not have this option.
The deceased was German, but lived in Schweiz. Which law applies?
In principle, this is correct, because the law governing succession is determined by the deceased’s last place of residence and not by their nationality (Art. 90(1) IPRG). The European Succession Regulation does not apply in this case. However, the testator may, by means of a will or a contract of succession, subject their estate to the law of one of their home countries (Article 91 of the IPRG). There is a restriction for dual nationals: anyone who is also a Schweizer national cannot, by choosing a specific law, override the Swiss rules on the freedom to dispose of one’s estate and thus the compulsory portions. Whether such a choice of law has been made is stated in the disposition itself and is one of the first things to be checked. It affects time limits, shares and the question of whether you will be an heir or a creditor.
Is inheritance tax payable on the payout?
This is often not the case under the Schweiz system, but it is frequently the case under the Deutschland system. The Schweiz system does not provide for a federal inheritance tax; the relevant popular initiative was decisively rejected in November 2025. The law of the canton in which the deceased last resided applies; in the case of immovable property, it is the law of the canton in which the property is situated. Surviving spouses and registered partners are exempt in all cantons, whilst direct descendants are exempt in the vast majority. Exceptions and tax-free allowances exist, for example, in Appenzell Innerrhoden, Vaud and Neuchâtel, and in Lucerne, the municipalities may levy tax above a certain threshold.
For many of those affected, however, it is the second aspect that is crucial. German inheritance tax is linked not only to the deceased but also to the domicile of the beneficiary. Anyone living in Deutschland who receives an inheritance from an estate in Schweiz is, in principle, liable for tax in Deutschland on the entire amount received. The double taxation agreement between Deutschland and Schweiz expressly permits this taxation and essentially provides for the deduction of any Schweiz tax paid. Tax allowances and tax brackets are then determined in accordance with German law. For larger sums, the tax implications must therefore be clarified before signing.
What it all boils down to
Under Schweizer law, it is possible to sell a compulsory share, but this is not a shortcut to bypass the proceedings. What you can sell depends on your position. As long as there is only a legal claim, a buyer is paying for the prospect of a future outcome. Once a specific amount has been determined, they are paying for a debt, and the difference between the two is often greater than what any negotiation can achieve.
This results in an unspectacular but reliable sequence of steps. The first step is to establish whether the will is valid at all and whether a choice of law has been made within it. This is followed by the one-year time limit, which can be safeguarded, if necessary, by filing an application for conciliation. This is followed by as comprehensive a picture as possible of the estate. And only at the very end does the decision arise as to whether you wish to fight for the full amount, reach an agreement with the co-heirs or waive your claim. Following this sequence, a sale is not a stopgap measure, but simply the more sensible course of action.
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.