Facts
The case concerns a woman, [B.], born in 1937, who was placed under guardianship in 1973 due to her mental health issues and disastrous financial management. The legal counsel, [A.], was appointed in 1996 to manage B.'s assets in the context of a combined guardianship. During his term, [A.] allowed B.'s estate to deteriorate significantly, going from 650,000 Swiss francs to zero in a few years. [B.] brought a liability action against [A.] to obtain compensation of 500,000 Swiss francs.
The key facts of the case are as follows
- B.'s guardianship was established in 1973 due to her mental health issues and disastrous financial management.
- [A.] was appointed as legal counsel in 1996 to manage B.'s assets in the context of a combined guardianship.
- During his term, [A.] allowed B.'s estate to deteriorate significantly, going from 650,000 Swiss francs to zero in a few years.
- [B.] brought a liability action against [A.] to obtain compensation of 500,000 Swiss francs.
Considerations
The decision of the federal court is based on the analysis of the liability of the legal counsel in the context of a combined guardianship. The court considered that the legal counsel had violated his duty to manage B.'s assets with care and had acted unlawfully by allowing B.'s estate to deteriorate significantly.
The court also examined A.'s arguments that he had acted in B.'s best interests and that B.'s estate had increased due to the appreciation of real estate. However, the court considered that these arguments were unfounded, as there was no link between the appreciation of real estate and the deterioration of B.'s estate.
The court concluded…