Facts
The appellant [A.] is domiciled in the United Kingdom. He is part of an estate community together with [B.] and [D.] in the estate of the deceased [E.] . At the request of [B.] , the single judge at the Cantonal Court of Zug issued an attachment order against [A.] 's share of the undistributed estate on 24 May 2013. The debt collection office [L.] then executed the attachment and initiated debt collection proceedings against [A.] .
[A.] filed a complaint against the debt collection proceedings and the attachment with the Higher Court of the Canton of Zug as the supervisory authority. He argued that the debt collection proceedings and the attachment were null and void due to the lack of local jurisdiction of the debt collection office and the attachment judge.
Considerations
The Federal Court upheld the complaint. It stated that according to its established case law, the share of an heir residing abroad must be attached at the heir's place of residence, not at the domicile of the deceased. Since [A.] is domiciled in the United Kingdom, the debt…