Facts
The late P.A. had drawn up a public will on 15 December 1988, in which she had notably instituted R.S., the son of her still-living daughter, as her heir. The descendants of her two other predeceased children, A., B. and C., had been reduced to their compulsory share. In April 1990, A., B. and C. challenged the validity of this will on the grounds of a defect in form. The court of first instance dismissed their claim, but the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Lucerne ultimately upheld their appeal and declared the will null and void. R.S. then appealed to the SCC, which dismissed his appeal. The SCC considered that the will did not comply with the legal formalities prescribed, as the testatrix had not read the document herself, it having been read to her by the notary in the absence of the witnesses, before she signed it.Considerations
The SCC recalls that the legal provisions on the form of public wills are conditions of validity and not merely of regularity. Although the SCC has sometimes accepted adaptations in the order of the formalities, it considers that in the present case, the fact that the testatrix did not read the document herself, it having been read to her by the notary in the absence…