Auftragsrechtliche Aspekte der Willensvollstreckung
Creators: name: Gauderon, Gabriela
name: Hofmann, Roland
Publisher: name: ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften
Year: 2010
Subjects: Auftragsrecht
Willensvollstreckung
Erbrecht
Contractual Law
Execution
Inheritance Law
346: Privatrecht (CH)

description: Testators can ensure the proper disposal of an estate by appointing a person of trust known as an executor, but this instrument is only perfunctorily referred to in articles 517 and 518 of the Swiss Civil Code (Zivilgesetzbuch). An executor not only ensures that the instructions received in a will are duly and properly executed, but also safeguards, administers and disposes of the estate. According to Federal Supreme Court rulings, it is an instrument under private law sui generis to which contractual law (articles 394-406 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (Obligationenrecht) equally applies. This is due to the parallels between a contract and the appointment of an executor, which are both characterized by a special relationship of trust between the parties.

Contractual law therefore provides an executor in many respects with a framework for performing his duties. However, due consideration must be given to his legal status as an instrument under private law sui generis. Significantly, the executor is acting independently and is not obliged to comply with instructions from anyone, i.e. the authority of the principal to give instructions, which is a typical characteristic of contracts, does not apply in relation to executors. However, for important decisions, the executor should, as a precautionary measure, obtain instructions in some form from the heirs, or at least their approval.

Contractual law plays an important role in relation to the instrument of an executor in the areas of duty of care and responsibility. The heirs, as the owners of the estate, may sue for damages if the executor has acted improperly or without due care. When performing his tasks, the executor therefore must take account of all obligations arising from his duty to take due care and his fiduciary responsibilities. The obligation to give an account and the duty of disclosure also plays an important role here. As the executor is acting independently in legal terms, the heirs cannot control his actions without detailed information.

As with contractual law, the executor, partly on account of limited specialist knowledge, may have to call in the services of an expert to perform some tasks. Using a substitute to perform certain tasks is commonplace and consistent with the duty of exercising due care if the executor is unable to perform a task. It is a matter of contention among academics as to whether a substitute may perform the overall management; most believe it is not permissible.

The law relating to executors is more narrow in some respects than contractual law. For example, strict procedures must be followed when appointing executors, in contrast to contractual law, where there are no formalities that need to be observed on principle. Furthermore, the remuneration of executors is mandatory, while, under contractual law, a fee may be due only if agreed in advance or if it is customary. However, when determining a reasonable fee for executors, reference may be made to what is the practice under contractual law.

The executors duties come to an end when the final report is received and approved by the heirs. However, the mandate may be terminated prematurely, particularly for reasons relating to the person designated as the executor. In addition to premature termination if a judge rules the appointment of the executor to be invalid or to annulment by a supervisory body, due consideration must be given in particular to grounds for termination under contractual law.

Despite the extensive opportunities for using contractual law as a guide, the challenges arising from the special status held by the executor still therefore need to be met. This can only be done if the executor works closely with the heirs, keeps them fully informed, establishes how they want the assets divided, and obtains instructions or at least their approval for important decisions.
description: Die Willensvollstreckung ist ein Institut zur Sicherung des Erbganges durch eine vom Erblasser bezeichnete Vertrauensperson, welches jedoch gesetzlich nur sehr rudimentär in Art. 517 und Art. 518 ZGB geregelt ist. Sie dient dazu, den pünktlichen und ordnungsgemässen Vollzug der in einer Verfügung von Todes wegen enthaltenen Anordnungen sicherzustellen sowie den Nachlass zu sichern und abzuwickeln. Gemäss bundesgerichtlicher Rechtsprechung handelt es sich um ein privatrechtliches Institut sui generis, auf welches die Bestimmungen des Auftragsrechts (Art. 394 – 406 OR) analog Anwendung finden. Dies rechtfertigt sich aufgrund der Verwandtschaft zwischen Auftrag und Willensvollstreckung, die beide durch ein besonderes Vertrauensverhältnis zwischen den Parteien geprägt sind.

Die Bestimmungen des Auftragsrechts bieten dem Willensvollstrecker somit in vielen Belangen eine Orientierungsmöglichkeit bei der Erfüllung seiner Aufgaben. Dabei ist jedoch der Rechtsnatur als privatrechtliches Institut sui generis stets gebührend Rechnung zu tragen. Insbesondere ist zu berücksichtigen, dass der Willensvollstrecker aus eigenem Recht handelt und von niemandem Weisungen entgegenzunehmen hat, d.h. das für den Auftrag typische Weisungsrecht des Auftraggebers findet im Rahmen der Willensvollstreckung keine Anwendung. Trotzdem sollte der Willensvollstrecker als Absicherungsmassnahme in einem gewissen Ausmass Weisungen der Erben oder zumindest deren Zustimmung zu wichtigen Entscheidungen einholen.

Im Bereich der Sorgfaltspflicht und der Verantwortlichkeit spielt das Auftragsrecht eine grosse Rolle für das Institut der Willensvollstreckung. Die Erben, als Eigentümer des Nachlassvermögens, haben die Möglichkeit, einen Schaden, der durch unsachgemässes und unsorgfältiges Handeln des Willensvollstreckers entstanden ist, geltend zu machen. Der Willensvollstrecker hat deshalb sämtliche sich aus der Sorgfalts- und Treuepflicht ergebenden Pflichten bei seinem Handeln zu berücksichtigen. Eine wichtige Rolle spielt dabei auch die Rechenschafts- und Auskunftspflicht. Aufgrund der eigenrechtlichen Stellung des Willensvollstreckers haben die Erben ohne ausführliche Information keine Möglichkeit, dessen Handeln zu kontrollieren.

Wie der Beauftragte ist auch der Willensvollstrecker z.T. aufgrund mangelnder Fachkenntnisse dazu gezwungen, einzelne Aufgaben einem Spezialisten zu übertragen. Die Substitution von einzelnen Aufgaben ist üblich und entspricht zudem dem Gebot der Sorgfalt, wenn der Willensvollstrecker einer Aufgabe nicht gewachsen ist. In der Lehre ist allerdings umstritten, ob auch die Substitution der Gesamtführung zulässig ist, wobei der überwiegende Teil der Lehre sich dagegen ausspricht.

Zum Teil geht die gesetzliche Regelung der Willensvollstreckung auch weiter als das Auftragsrecht. So ist z.B. die Ernennung des Willensvollstreckers an strenge Formvorschriften geknüpft, während im Auftragsrecht der Grundsatz der Formfreiheit gilt. Weiter ist eine Vergütung des Willensvollstreckers zwingend vorgesehen, während ein Honorar im Auftragsrecht nur geschuldet ist, sofern dies vereinbart oder üblich ist. Allerdings kann bei der Bestimmung der Angemessenheit des Honorars des Willensvollstreckers auf die Praxis zum Auftragsrecht zurückgegriffen werden.

Die Willensvollstreckung endet grundsätzlich mit der Entgegennahme und Genehmigung des Schlussberichts durch die Erben. Möglich ist auch eine vorzeitige Beendigung des Mandats, insbesondere aus Gründen, die in der Person des designierten Willensvollstreckers liegen. Diesbezüglich sind neben der vorzeitigen Beendigung durch richterliche Ungültigerklärung der Ernennung des Willensvollstreckers und der Absetzung durch die Aufsichtsbehörde insbesondere die Beendigungsgründe des Auftragsrechts zu berücksichtigen.

Trotz der weitgehenden Möglichkeit, sich am Auftragsrecht zu orientieren, bleibt folglich die Herausforderung, der besonderen Stellung die dem Willensvollstrecker zukommt gerecht zu werden, bestehen. Diese Herausforderung kann nur dadurch bewältigt werden, dass der Willensvollstrecker eng mit den Erben zusammenarbeitet, sie vollumfänglich informiert, sich nach deren Teilungswünschen erkundigt und für wesentliche Entscheidungen Weisungen der Erben oder zumindest deren Zustimmung einholt.
description: Testators can ensure the proper disposal of an estate by appointing a person of trust known as an executor, but this instrument is only perfunctorily referred to in articles 517 and 518 of the Swiss Civil Code (Zivilgesetzbuch). An executor not only ensures that the instructions received in a will are duly and properly executed, but also safeguards, administers and disposes of the estate. According to Federal Supreme Court rulings, it is an instrument under private law sui generis to which contractual law (articles 394-406 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (Obligationenrecht) equally applies. This is due to the parallels between a contract and the appointment of an executor, which are both characterized by a special relationship of trust between the parties.

Contractual law therefore provides an executor in many respects with a framework for performing his duties. However, due consideration must be given to his legal status as an instrument under private law sui generis. Significantly, the executor is acting independently and is not obliged to comply with instructions from anyone, i.e. the authority of the principal to give instructions, which is a typical characteristic of contracts, does not apply in relation to executors. However, for important decisions, the executor should, as a precautionary measure, obtain instructions in some form from the heirs, or at least their approval.

Contractual law plays an important role in relation to the instrument of an executor in the areas of duty of care and responsibility. The heirs, as the owners of the estate, may sue for damages if the executor has acted improperly or without due care. When performing his tasks, the executor therefore must take account of all obligations arising from his duty to take due care and his fiduciary responsibilities. The obligation to give an account and the duty of disclosure also plays an important role here. As the executor is acting independently in legal terms, the heirs cannot control his actions without detailed information.

As with contractual law, the executor, partly on account of limited specialist knowledge, may have to call in the services of an expert to perform some tasks. Using a substitute to perform certain tasks is commonplace and consistent with the duty of exercising due care if the executor is unable to perform a task. It is a matter of contention among academics as to whether a substitute may perform the overall management; most believe it is not permissible.

The law relating to executors is more narrow in some respects than contractual law. For example, strict procedures must be followed when appointing executors, in contrast to contractual law, where there are no formalities that need to be observed on principle. Furthermore, the remuneration of executors is mandatory, while, under contractual law, a fee may be due only if agreed in advance or if it is customary. However, when determining a reasonable fee for executors, reference may be made to what is the practice under contractual law.

The executors duties come to an end when the final report is received and approved by the heirs. However, the mandate may be terminated prematurely, particularly for reasons relating to the person designated as the executor. In addition to premature termination if a judge rules the appointment of the executor to be invalid or to annulment by a supervisory body, due consideration must be given in particular to grounds for termination under contractual law.

Despite the extensive opportunities for using contractual law as a guide, the challenges arising from the special status held by the executor still therefore need to be met. This can only be done if the executor works closely with the heirs, keeps them fully informed, establishes how they want the assets divided, and obtains instructions or at least their approval for important decisions.