Summary

According to the Succession Act, a contractual successor or legatee may request, within one year of the acceptance of the bequest, the annulment of the gratuitous contract and of the giving of the bequest, according to the provisions on unfounded enrichment, if the bequeather has given the gratuity with the aim of causing damage to the contractual successor or legatee. Although concluding succession contracts has only been possible in the Estonian legal experience for a relatively short time (only since 1 January 1997), there have already been a few cases – based on disputes proceeding from §96, paragraph 3 of the Succession Act – that have culminated in a court decision.

The article, by using these two cases as examples, clarifies the reasons why the persons benefiting from succession contracts were not able to enforce their law-based rights in the courts and what they could have done differently. In analysing the problems, standpoints described in German legal commentary have been used for comparison purposes – mainly because it was the pertinent provision in the German civil code that was used as a direct model in developing this regulation in the Succession Act. The author criticises the current Estonian court practice, according to which the person who is the beneficiary in the succession contract must prove both the damaging intent of the gratuitous contract as well as the existence of damage caused.