Approval of the final account and discharge of the curator; appeal by the heirs dismissed

Facts

The person under curatorship died on xx.xx.2017. By decision of 27 June 2018, the Child and Adult Protection Authority Olten-Gösgen (KESB) found that the curatorship had ended and was being written off from the register. It approved the final report and the final account for the period from xx.xx.2016 to xx.xx.2017, discharged the curator, set her remuneration at Fr. 3'070.-- (including a mandate fee of Fr. 2'200.--), and ordered the heirs jointly and severally to pay it to the Sozialregion. It also imposed the procedural costs on the heirs.

The heirs (appellants) lodged an appeal with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn, which dismissed the appeal by judgment of 23 November 2018, insofar as it was admissible, and imposed the court costs on the appellants.

By civil law appeal of 11 January 2019, the appellants requested before the Federal Supreme Court the annulment of the judgment and the refusal to approve the final account on several points (invoice from [G. AG] , invoice from [H. AG] , a loan, and the sale price of a property), the refusal of discharge of the curator, and the deletion of the mandate fee. In the alternative, they requested remittal to the KESB, and in the further alternative, to the Administrative Court. The Administrative Court and the curator requested dismissal of the appeal. The KESB did not comment.

The subject matter of the dispute was the approval of the final account and the discharge of the curator (consideration 3), as well as her remuneration, in particular the alleged oral assurance of free mandate management (consideration 4).

Considerations

Admissibility: The appealed decision is a final decision of a superior cantonal court acting as appellate instance in a public law matter in direct connection with civil law of a pecuniary nature (Art. 72 para. 2 lit. b no. 6, Art. 75, Art. 90 FSCA). Whether the amount in dispute is reached and whether the appellants have standing remains open. The requests to annul the KESB decision are inadmissible, as it was replaced by the judgment of the Administrative Court (devolutive effect). The Federal Supreme Court reviews the application of law freely, but is bound by the facts unless the strict duty to raise complaints is met (Art. 95 f., Art. 105 para. 1, Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA).

Approval of the final account and discharge: The final account and the final report serve to inform and not to review the curatorship. Approval is to be granted if it satisfies this information function, without the authority having to comment on any possible misconduct. It has no direct substantive legal significance and does not grant full discharge; liability claims (Art. 454 CC) remain reserved. The appellants wrongly demanded a cumulative substantive review of the appropriateness of the entries, the proper management of the mandate and the consents. Such a review is reserved for any liability proceedings. The complaints regarding the information function ultimately concerned only the substantive correctness of the account (locking system, [H. AG] , loan agreement) and cannot be reviewed in the present proceedings. The submissions regarding the accounting period prior to the relevant period also fail.

Constitutional complaints: The complaints of violation of Art. 29 para. 2 Cst., Art. 9 Cst. and Art. 425 CC are unfounded, as they rest on the incorrect…