Here’s an interesting one.

I have a friend with an estranged son who lives in the UK and he has rejected all contact with his mother who now lives in Switzerland. Over 30 have passed since there was any contact despite strenuous attempts by his mother, who will fall under Swiss inheritance laws.

Is my friend expected to hand over half her estate to her son??

Yes.

She needs to get advice asap to see if she can by-pass this.

Professional advice is always worth the cost, but I wish her good luck. Perhaps if the law changes ...

Unless he signs it away, thats the advantage of being Swiss, you do not get the possibility to choose, your wishes count for nothing. Remind me why I did not become Swiss ?

It's clearly not possible as a minor can not renounce their rights under law, unbelievable that you think Swiss law would give such an absurd option.

You may well be right- but I'd rather trust an experienced Swiss Solicitor- if you don't mind. This is not depriving a minor of its inheritance, at all - it just means he has to wait until second parent dies.

It's more that the other parent needs that money to raise said child. If my husband or I were to die, the household income drops substantially. If a quarter of savings are tied up in some sort of trust, that makes the logistics of paying for things like a university education or a new car very difficult.

Actually it takes 50k signatures to force a vote (yes or no only) on a law or change of the constitution that originates from the parliament such as this change of the inheritance law. The majority of the votes determines the result. This is called Referendum in German.

100k is the number of signatures to get a vote on a change of the constitution that originates from a person or group outside of the federal parliament. In order to pass, the proposition needs the majority of votes and of the Cantons. This is called Initiative (shorthand for Volksinitiative) in German.
Everybody who may get less due to the reduced mandatory shares is a potential opponent of the change. That's probably the clear majority of the voters.

Not so fast, cowboy.

By law, the recipient of a gift (that's significant enough) has to make good, upon the death of the donor/testator, for the monetary disadvantage the mandatory heirs incurred.

Now, and this is my speculation, because the giftee may spend the monetary value received, or otherwise become unable or unwilling to make good on their obligation, I would expect that the mandatory heirs can lay their hands on the goods today in order to protect their share of the heritage. For instance in the case of real estate, I would expect that they can force an entry in the land registry that prohibits the sale without their consent. I believe this is what §521 ff of the civil code are about.

Depends, can be 30 years.

If the gift isn't mentioned in the will and it's been gotten based on bad will, you seem to have 30 years. At least that's what I make of §521.

What about a single guy with no kids? Does the state grab everything, if no will?

Not so easy if you are Swiss, have children from multiple marriages, and the kids aren't on board.

Tom

Goes to parents, siblings, and other relatives.

State only gets it if their are no legal heirs.

Tom

See here.

As for inheriting debt:
You'll be given a list of the known assets and obligations, and only if you accept by signing will you get your share of the goods (or bads). It's all or nothing, you can't accept the asssets only, for example.

FMF is right. Take it from Kanton Zürich and save the lawyer's fee.

And yes, it is potentially depriving an heir of their inheritance. As for "just has to wait" - there may be nothing left worth waiting for if the surviving spouse spends the money. And even if they don't, the children will see their share reduced if the surviving spouse marries again and/or creates more offspring, which is quite likely to happen.

We ran into this once. Mama and Papa were selling their house in order to retire to sunnier climes and enjoy their remaining years.

Their son filed suit (or whatever you call the process here) to stop the sale, claiming the house was his inheritance and therefore couldn't be sold without his permission.

I don't know how that ended, as we skedaddled as soon as we heard of the dispute.

Wow! such a selfish son.

Would he have been justified, if say he had put a lot of money into it, so his parents could afford to buy the house in the first place?

That seems totally incredible - and yes, I would love to know how it ended up. WOW. Surely, in your lifetime, you can dispose of and spend the money you have earned as you please. Inheritance comes after you die- not before

I have no idea what the details of the dispute were, we were just potential buyers.

If a third party has a legal claim to a property I would expect that should be entered into the Grundbuch, but who knows what goes on in families...

My rule: Any complications to a sale means walk away. Or better yet run.