Facts
The appellant, [L.] , is the sole heir of the precariously entitled heir [V.] , who was the husband of the testatrix [E.] . The testatrix had determined in her will that her assets should pass to her husband, subject to the obligation to deliver the assets to her three brothers after his death. The respondents, [A.] , [B.] and [C.] , are the subsequent heirs. They sued the appellant for disclosure of the remaining inheritance.
The District Court of [G.] partially upheld the claim and ordered the appellant to pay CHF 63,688.85 to the respondents. The High Court of the Canton of Zurich amended the judgment and ordered the appellant to pay CHF 997,021.25 to the respondents.
The appellant requests the Federal Court to overturn the High Court's judgment and refer the case back to the High Court for reassessment. She argues that the High Court did not establish and consider the claims of the precariously entitled heir under matrimonial property law and entitlement to a compulsory share.
Considerations
The Federal Court must examine whether the High Court was correct in not considering the claims of the precariously entitled heir under matrimonial property law and entitlement to a compulsory share. The appellant argues that the High Court did not carry out the matrimonial property settlement between the testatrix and the precariously entitled heir and did not establish the matrimonial property claim of the precariously entitled heir.
The Federal Court finds that the matrimonial property settlement must precede the inheritance settlement. The appellant should have presented her factual allegations and evidence in the main proceedings. The subsequent submissions…