Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sodba II Cp 3410/2011 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2012:II.CP.3410.2011 AI generated

Court dismisses will invalidity claim due to non-conclusive form defect requiring separate annulment action.

Case Number VSL sodba II Cp 3410/2011
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's claim to declare the will invalid, ruling that the trial court correctly refused the request. The plaintiff argued the will was invalid due to a fake signature or lack of testamentary capacity, but the court found these defects rendered the will voidable rather than void ab initio. Consequently, the court held that the proper legal remedy for such defects is a separate action for annulment, not a direct claim for invalidity.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

64. člen ZD; 59. člen ZD: A defect in the form of a will, such as a non-authentic signature or lack of testamentary capacity, renders the will voidable rather than void, requiring a separate action for annulment instead of a direct claim for invalidity.

Keywords

AI generated
will invalidity claim form defect will voidable will annulment action testamentary capacity non-authentic signature ZD provisions

Cited Legislation

AI generated
64. člen ZD
59. člen ZD

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

I. Pritožba se zavrne in se potrdi sodba sodišča prve stopnje.

II. Pravdni stranki nosita sami svoje stroške pritožbenega postopka.

[JEDRO]

Tožbenemu zahtevku, naj se ugotovi, da je sporna zapustničina oporoka neveljavna, sodišče v nobenem primeru ne bi smelo ugoditi, ker tožba v tem delu ni sklepčna. Če podpis zapustnika na oporoki ni pristen, gre za napako v obliki oporoke, ki po 64. členu ZD povzroči njeno neveljavnost. Enako pravno posledico ima po 59. členu ZD pomanjkanje oporočne sposobnosti oziroma nerazsodnost zapustnika v času sestave oporoke. Zaradi takšnih pomanjkljivosti pa oporoka ni nična, ampak zgolj izpodbojna. Upravičenec mora zato zahtevati njeno razveljavitev, ki jo lahko doseže le z ustreznim oblikovalnim zahtevkom.