Facts
E. passed away on July 9, 1995. According to a will dated August 31, 1987, she had instituted K. as the sole heir. In 1992 or 1993, she drafted a new will instituting B. as the sole heir and executor, with instructions to pay a legacy to K. On December 2, 1993, she confirmed this new disposition. On February 25, 1995, she revoked all her previous dispositions, except in favor of B. K. contested the validity of the will of December 2, 1993 and subsidiarily requested that B. be declared unworthy to inherit and incapable of exercising the office of executor. The Cantonal Court admitted the unworthiness of B. on the grounds that he had prevented, through his behavior, the revocation of the will of December 2, 1993 or the establishment of a new testamentary disposition by the testatrix.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal holds that unworthiness may result from a behavior by omission, in this case the fact that B., as the testatrix's lawyer and having a decisive influence over her, did not fulfill his duty to inform her. Although theoretically the testatrix could have revoked the will…