Facts

Parties:

  • [A.] (appellant), represented by attorney Dr. Manuel Brandenberg,
  • [B.] (respondent), Estate Office Baar, in its capacity as estate liquidator pursuant to Art. 595 CC of the estate of [C.] , who passed away on August 29, 2017, represented by attorney Dr. Michael Iten.

Facts:

  • [A.] was appointed as a board member of [C.] in 2007 and received a power of attorney.
  • In 2008, a motion for removal was filed against [A.] , and in 2011, she was removed from office.
  • [A.] sued for payment of CHF 47,639.55 plus interest in 2015, which [C.] rejected and filed a counterclaim.
  • After the death of [C.] , the Estate Office Baar was appointed as estate liquidator.
  • The Cantonal Court dismissed the claim and imposed court costs and party compensation on [A.] .
  • The Higher Court of the Canton of SocRA did not enter into the appeal of [A.] and rejected her application for legal aid.
  • [A.] filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, which partially granted suspensive effect.

Considerations

The appeal concerns the dismissal of the appeal by the Higher Court of the Canton of SocRA due to insufficient grounds. The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the appeal brief meets the requirements for sufficient grounds.

The lower court justified its non-admission by stating that the appeal was not sufficiently grounded. The grounds of appeal are a procedural requirement under Art. 311 para. 1 CPC. The appellant must demonstrate in what respect the challenged decision is erroneous. This requires a precise and clear explanation that refers to the considerations of the lower court.

The appellant cited numerous passages in her appeal brief that she claimed met the grounds requirements. However, she…