He helped his father commit suicide, but he will still receive his inheritance

Assistance in suicide from the perspective of the courts

The father was terminally ill (doctors diagnosed him with ALS) and his decision to leave this world was voluntary. The son helped him by not only transporting him to the place where he decided to commit suicide, but also providing him with everything he needed to do so. After the son left the scene, his father wrote him a final message saying that he loved him. He then went to the city police headquarters, where he falsely reported that his father was missing (the son knew that his father wanted to commit suicide and had most likely already done so) and presented the police with a farewell letter written by his father. After hearing the evidence, the criminal court found him guilty of participating in suicide and sentenced him to a suspended prison term.

The Municipal Court in Brno, which was dealing with the estate, stated that it was bound by the decision of the criminal court. For this reason, the son of the testator was excluded from the inheritance proceedings, as he had become unfit to inherit due to his assistance in the suicide. The court did not consider relevant the fact that would have strengthened the son’s right to inherit, namely that the testator had left a farewell letter in which he stated: “I leave everything to my son.” The inheritance proceedings therefore originally began without the participation of the son, only with the deceased’s surviving sister and the man’s two nephews.

The testator’s surviving son appealed against the decision of the Municipal Court in Brno, to which the Regional Court in Brno responded with a confirmatory decision. However, the son was not satisfied with this outcome and appealed against the decision to the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, as well as filing a constitutional complaint (later rejected). In his appeal and constitutional complaint, the son emphasized that he had committed the crime in accordance with his father’s will and on the basis of his wishes, i.e., not against him or against his will.

Czech legal regulation of inheritance capacity

According to Section 1481 of Czech Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Code of the Czech Republic”), “anyone who has committed an intentional criminal offense against the testator, his ancestor, descendant, or spouse, or a reprehensible act against the testator’s last will, in particular by forcing or deceiving the testator into expressing their last will, preventing the testator from expressing their last will, or concealing, falsifying, forging, or intentionally destroying their last will, unless the testator has expressly forgiven them for this act.”

The court hearing the estate case stated that it was bound by the previous decision of the court in criminal proceedings and therefore did not examine the question of whether the son had committed a criminal offense or not. However, it was up to the court itself to assess whether this criminal offense was committed against the testator under Section 1481 of the Civil Code of the Czech Republic. Despite all the known facts, the court assessed the son’s actions as an intentional criminal offense against the testator – participation in the testator’s suicide.

In addition to the above, the court hearing the estate case assessed the letter written by the testator before his death as a formally valid holographic will. However, from a material point of view, it saw a problem in the fact that it is impossible to forgive a criminal or reprehensible act before it has been committed. Furthermore, the court did not consider the testator’s sentence “I bequeath everything to my son” to be an explicit forgiveness of a criminal act.

If we look at the institution of forgiveness in the Civil Code of the Czech Republic through the prism of historical interpretation, in all previous civil codes valid in the Czech territory, including the interwar drafts, implied forgiveness was sufficient (as evidenced by Czech case law). The subsequent tightening of the law did not occur until the final phase of recodification (approximately in the fall and winter of 2011). Even the recodification bill sent to the Legislative Council of the Czech Government in April 2011 did not yet contain this explicit requirement. Therefore, it can be deduced by basic logical argument a contrario that implied forgiveness was sufficient.

Assistance in suicide from the perspective of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic

The son’s appeal brought the case before the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic. The fundamental question, which had not yet been addressed in the case law of Czech courts, was whether “the act of participation in the suicide of the testator committed by the heir is directed against the testator, or whether a final court judgment issued in criminal proceedings stating that this crime was of an intentional nature and that it was committed by the heir is ‘sufficient‘.”

The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic looked at the currently valid and effective legislation through the prism of historical interpretation. The Civil Code of the Czech Republic, effective from January 1, 2014, in Section 1481, reformulated its wording from the original “whoever committed an intentional criminal offense against the testator” to the new “who has committed an act of an intentional criminal nature against the testator.” This wording was primarily intended to remove any doubt as to whether persons who are not criminally responsible (due to lack of age or sanity) are also excluded from inheritance.

The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic took into account all the circumstances of the crime, including the testator’s farewell letter and his last message to his son, and concluded that the crime was not directed against the testator but was committed in accordance with his will. It was clear that the son had acted in accordance with the testator’s wishes and was clearly grateful to him for his “help.” In inheritance proceedings, the court dealing with the estate is therefore bound by the decision of the court in criminal proceedings, but only in relation to the question of whether a crime was committed. The question of whether the crime was committed against the testator must be assessed by the courts dealing with the estate themselves, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic therefore ruled that the son did not become disqualified from inheritance and, moreover, that it would not be fair to punish the son “twice,” i.e., by imposing a suspended prison sentence and excluding him from inheriting from the testator.

The main idea behind the final decision of the appellate court was the conclusion that the circumstances of inheritance disqualification must always be assessed individually and in their entirety, and therefore, under certain circumstances, assisting in suicide is not a criminal offense against the testator that would cause inheritance disqualification.

Slovak legal regulation of inheritance capacity

Under Slovak law, inheritance capacity is also a key prerequisite for inheritance. Act No. 40/1964 Coll., the Civil Code, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Code of the Slovak Republic”) exhaustively lists the reasons that ex lege cause a person’s incapacity to inherit without the need for an additional expression of will by the testator.

The provision of Section 469 of the Civil Code of the Slovak Republic reads: “A person who has committed an intentional criminal offense against the testator, his or her spouse, children, or parents, or who has committed reprehensible conduct against the expression of the testator’s last will, shall not inherit. However, he or she may inherit if the testator has forgiven him or her for this act.”

Since this is an exhaustive list of persons against whom an intentional criminal offense must be directed by a (potential) heir, the commission of an intentional criminal offense against a person other than those mentioned in this provision does not affect his or her eligibility to inherit. An heir who fulfills any of the grounds for disqualification from inheritance is treated as if they did not exist; they are completely excluded from inheritance. Disqualification from inheritance is taken into account by the court ( ) ex officio. Only the testator himself can deprive a (potential) heir of his or her inheritance capacity during his or her lifetime, and this lasts only until the testator forgives the heir. Subsequently, forgiveness is most likely irrevocable due to the principle of legal certainty and the prohibition of abuse of rights.

The occurrence of inheritance disqualification is not conditional on the person being convicted of such a criminal offense or on criminal proceedings being initiated against them. The only factor relevant to inheritance eligibility is whether the person committed an intentional criminal offense against the testator during their lifetime.

If the heir was also convicted of such a criminal offense, the court is bound by such a decision in the inheritance proceedings, However, the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic has stated that “in its decision-making practice, the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic has found that when interpreting and applying legal provisions, it is undoubtedly necessary to start from their literal wording, but the court is not absolutely bound by it. It may, and indeed must, deviate from the literal wording of the legal text where this is required for serious reasons by the purpose of the law, systematic context, or the requirement for a constitutionally compliant interpretation of laws and other generally binding legal regulations.”

The second reason for inheritance incapacity is reprehensible conduct by the (potential) heir against the expression of the testator’s last will. Inheritance disqualification is caused not only by conduct contrary to the will, but also by conduct contrary to other documents that represent the testator’s last will or are closely related to it. However, conduct directed against the testator’s last will and testament does not have to constitute a criminal offense, but it must be reprehensible conduct.

The law does not specify precisely what conduct is considered reprehensible, so this issue is always assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. Reprehensible conduct against the expression of the testator’s last will may occur not only during the testator’s lifetime, but also after his or her death.

The testator is the only one who can avert the inheritance disqualification of a (potential) heir by making a declaration of intent to forgive. Forgiveness is a unilateral legal act of the testator, for which the law does not require any special form, in particular it does not require that it be done in the form of a will. The testator may forgive the heir in writing, orally, or even implicitly (unlike under current Czech law), but the forgiveness must meet all the requirements of a valid legal act (requirements of the subject, requirements of will, requirements of expression of will, and requirements of the subject matter of the legal act).

It must be clear from the testator’s expression of will that he is forgiving the heir and what specifically he is forgiving him for. He must also be aware of all the decisive circumstances that are relevant for assessing the seriousness of the heir’s conduct, and therefore it is not excluded to recognize the relevance of an expression of will by the testator in which he forgives the heir for everything he has done.

However, such cases are rare and their assessment will depend on the circumstances of the case. It is, however, completely out of the question for the testator to forgive his heir for acts that he may commit in the future. This is due to the mutual checks and balances in Slovak law, as well as the private law principle of equality and balance between parties to contractual relationships, since such an act would put (future) testator would be placed at a disadvantage, as any criminal offenses committed by the heir would be automatically excused. In such a case, the (future) testator would still have the option of disinheritance, but one of the exhaustively defined cases giving rise to the right to disinherit a descendant is that they must be convicted of an intentional criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for at least one year.

In the case of inheritance incapacity, in comparison with the institution of disinheritance, only the commission (not conviction) of a criminal offense against the testator and other exhaustively defined persons is required, and the perpetrator must be sentenced to imprisonment for at least one year (in the case of disqualification from inheritance, the sentence does not even have to be imposed).

The District Court in Trenčín had previously dealt with a case of inheritance incapacity, in which it dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant was incapable of inheriting. During the proceedings, it was proven that at the end of 1990, the defendant committed the intentional criminal offense of stealing funds from the plaintiff and the testator. It was undisputed that the testator was aware of this act and her subsequent behavior did not indicate that she wanted to take action against the defendant. The court expressed the opinion that the testator had tacitly forgiven him for this act. Other acts allegedly committed by the defendant against the testator, which would have rendered him unfit to inherit, were ruled out by expert evidence. The plaintiff therefore failed to meet the burden of proof, as she was unable to present any further evidence to the court that would prove the defendant’s incapacity to inherit. On this basis, the court dismissed her claim.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we could summarize two main differences between the Czech and Slovak legal systems, which lie in the manner of expressing the testator’s will to forgive, as well as in the wording of the provisions on inheritance incapacity.

While according to the Civil Code of the Czech Republic, forgiveness is only possible expressly, according to the Civil Code of the Slovak Republic, the testator may forgive the (potential) heir in writing, orally, or even tacitly (implied), but the forgiveness must meet the conditions of a valid legal act.

The second difference is the wording of the provisions on inheritance disqualification. According to Section 1481 of the Civil Code of the Czech Republic, “anyone who has committed an intentional criminal offense against the testator, his ancestors, descendants, or spouse, or a reprehensible act against the testator’s last will, in particular by coercing or deceiving the testator into expressing their last will, concealing, falsifying, forging or intentionally destroying the expression of their last will, unless the testator has expressly forgiven them for this act.”

According to Section 469 of the Civil Code of the Slovak Republic, “a person who has committed an intentional criminal offense against the testator, his or her spouse, children, or parents, or who has acted in a manner worthy of condemnation against the expression of the testator’s last will, shall not inherit. However, he or she may inherit if the testator has forgiven him or her for this act.”

The Civil Code of the Czech Republic refers to an act of an intentional criminal nature against the testator, and the Civil Code of the Slovak Republic refers to an intentional criminal act against the testator. As stated by the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, courts are not absolutely bound by the literal text of the law and may deviate from it if the purpose of the law itself requires it for serious reasons.

We therefore take the view that in this case the man committed an intentional criminal offense, but did not commit an act against the testator. We consider it necessary to interpret the law humanely and rationally, and therefore the man could not have committed an act against the testator if he acted in accordance with the testator’s will, which is beyond doubt. We believe that the man should be a competent heir under Slovak law as well, because it would be unfair for him to be punished three times—in criminal proceedings, in inheritance proceedings, and even punished for life because he lost one of the closest people in his life—his father.

References

1. Resolution of the Municipal Court in Brno dated 28 February 2019, ref. no. 58 D 590/2017.
2. Provision of Section 1481 of Czech Act No. 89/2012 Coll., Civil Code, as amended.
3. HORÁK, O., Last acquisition as an explicit waiver of an act constituting inheritance disqualification? Available online at: https://www.nkcr.cz/casopis-ad-notam/detail/39_689-posledni-porizeni-jako-vyslovne-prominuti-cinu-zakladajiciho-dedickou-nezpusobilost.
4. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic dated 16 June 2021, ref. no. 24 Cdo 106/2021.
5. DULÁKOVÁ, D., DULÁK, A., Repetitórium z Občianskeho práva hmotného [Repetitorium of Substantive Civil Law], vol. 1, Bratislava: Wolters Kluwer, 2018, p. 92.
6. Provision of Section 469 of Act No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code, as amended.
7. Provision of Section 161(1) of Act No. 161/2015 Coll., Civil Non-Contentious Procedure, as amended.
8. ŠTEVČEK, M., DULÁK, A., BAJÁNKOVÁ, J., FEČÍK, M., SEDLAČKO, F., TOMAŠOVIČ, M. et al., Civil Code II. Sections 451–880. 2nd edition. Commentary. Prague: C. H. Beck, 2019, p. 1779.
9. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, ref. no. I ÚS 331/2019, dated 19 November 2019.
10. ŠTEVČEK, M., DULÁK, A., BAJÁNKOVÁ, J., FEČÍK, M., SEDLAČKO, F., TOMAŠOVIČ, M. et al., Civil Code II. § 451 – 880. 2nd edition. Commentary. Prague: C. H. Beck, 2019, pp. 1779-1780.
11. Ibidem, pp. 1779-1781.
12. Ibid., p. 1780.
13. Judgment of the District Court in Trenčín dated January 27, 2009, ref. no. 12C/14/2000.
14. Provision of Section 1481 of Czech Act No. 89/2012 Coll., Civil Code, as amended.
15. Provision of Section 469 of Act No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code, as amended.