Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATAS/762/2004 • CJ GE ATAS/762/2004 Généré par l'IA

Attestation Clause Validity and Extrinsic Evidence in Will Execution

Numéro de cause ATAS/762/2004
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The case concerns the proper interpretation and application of statutory requirements regarding the proper execution of a will, specifically focusing on whether an attestation clause, which falsely stated that the testator signed in the presence of the witnesses, could be overcome by extrinsic evidence to prove the will was otherwise validly signed. The court reasoned that while a formal attestation clause creates a strong presumption of due execution, this presumption is rebuttable, and where clear and convincing extrinsic evidence demonstrates that the testator signed the will outside the presence of the witnesses as attested, that evidence must prevail, leading to a finding that the statutory requirement for witnessing was not met.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Attestation Clause Validity and Extrinsic Evidence in Will Execution: The court reasoned that while a formal attestation clause creates a strong presumption of due execution, this presumption is rebuttable, and where clear and convincing extrinsic evidence demonstrates that the testator signed the will outside the presence of the witnesses as attested, that evidence must prevail, leading to a finding that the statutory requirement for witnessing was not met.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
validité du testament condition légale acte de cautionnement attestation et certification degré de la preuve preuve libératoire

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

This article was cited for ordering the appellant to pay the court costs.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

     

     !"

#$%&

$' #(') %) $& '#%& %)&

* + , -  ".  %/ -

  

0* (1111111111 



%& %)& 2&&& $& % & ''()   !" #$ %&



   (1111111111 )  

        + ,-.+

 *  3 2  /$ 3' ,11$ 45 6666666666    '7    ' 8 9   )''  ''  0 3' ,11$   '  :&'  (*' ;'+*% <   =    *)   *'': >>) *   ?   /, @ ,11$      3   ?

 *  0 29' &'  *)7  *)' 2  ' :&'  9:'' 3 '''  ,, &(7 /0$/ ;=  )) ( '>')  29 '7    '  )) '') %  / @ ,11.   ' '2 ((   ' '& 8  ' >) )  9+ &''  &'&  ,1 )(7 /0$A ;>5 5 / 5   #A 5 / 5  !5 / = ? 9 &  95 B/ 5 /   '   *)   ('''&  /, *(7 /0C# ; = 9') *   9>>'   2" 9    '   '' 3' '2  *'7 9" >>) * 9'   *)  ?  )''  &'    7 ? 9 9  *) *)   ):( 4( 6666666666 %  29 *   *)   *'': >>) *   '&( D &  D+)*D 6666666666 ? 9'  3'>' %  9   4( 66666666665

-/#01-,11$ + .-.+

# %& 4 )& #(') %) $& '#%& %)&

56030   7  ,00 0  86 " )9:

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

 :>>'% <  )'  <

I F )' 4 

 *' >(  *) "  '>') D *' '' 2E8 E>>' >) )   ' *  :>> 

-/#01-,11$