Freedom of testamentary disposition in the relationship between patient and treating doctor – Decision of the Federal Court of Justice on the validity of a property promise
In the judgment of July 3, 2024 (Az.: IV ZR 93/24), the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) once again emphasized the importance of freedom of testamentary disposition and ruled that it is generally permissible for a patient to bequeath a property to their general practitioner through a testamentary document (will). The decision addresses the conditions under which such estate arrangements between patients and doctors are valid and when, exceptionally, the assumption of immorality or a legal prohibition might be considered.
Foundations of testamentary freedom and its limits
Principle of testamentary freedom
In inheritance law, the principle of testamentary freedom applies according to § 1937 BGB. This grants the testator the possibility to determine the disposition of their assets according to their own wishes by means of a unilateral disposition upon death – such as the creation of a will. The subjective right to self-determination is a central element of German inheritance law and is only subject to legal restrictions in certain cases.
Legal restrictions and protection against dishonest influence
Significant restrictions include, for example, incapacity to contract and to make a will, legal prohibitions, such as under § 14 HeilmG, as well as the principle of good faith (§ 242 BGB). Dispositions must also not violate moral standards in the sense of § 138 BGB. A testamentary promise based on an immoral influence would be void. The same applies if contractual or factual dependency relationships exist that unduly impair the testator’s freedom of decision.
Special regulations in professional law for healthcare professions
Both the professional codes of conduct for doctors and the Law on Advertising in the Healthcare System contain professional legal regulations that govern dealings with gifts or other benefits from patients. Additionally, some federal states have professional legal restrictions on the acceptance of financial benefits by doctors to avoid potential conflicts of interest and to protect the trust relationship. However, these restrictions differ from civil law norms.
BGH decision: Granting to the general practitioner not per se inadmissible
Facts and background
In the case underlying the decision, a patient had bequeathed a property to his long-term general practitioner by will. After the patient’s death, relatives raised objections and sought the invalidity of the will, arguing that there was a violation of moral standards because the doctor had taken advantage of the long-term medical care for his own benefit. Therefore, the will would be void according to § 138 BGB.
Legal assessment by the court
The BGH dismissed the lawsuit, reasoning that not every donation from a patient to a treating physician is fundamentally inadmissible. Each individual case must be considered. It is crucial whether objective circumstances exist that could justify the assumption of immoral influence. This includes, for example, exploiting an illness or an extraordinary psychological dependency.
In the dispute, such improper influences could not be established. Instead, the patient acted of his own free will and with sufficient capacity to make decisions. The BGH emphasized that long-term medical care alone does not imply a presumption of undue influence or immorality.
Distinction from professional regulations
Furthermore, the court clarified that possible professional or criminal law prohibitions for doctors – for instance, arising from the respective state healthcare laws or the medical professional code – have no direct impact on the enforceability of the bequest under inheritance law. Inheritance law and the medical professional code pursue different objectives; civil invalidity cannot stem solely from potential professional legal consequences.
Practical relevance: Implications for relatives, doctors, and estate participants
Significance for estate planning and legal certainty
The decision enhances legal certainty regarding the basic leeway patients have when creating testamentary dispositions in favor of treating physicians. It alerts relatives and third parties that objections to the validity of testamentary gifts must be specifically substantiated, and broad claims of undue influence are not sufficient.
Standards for assessing admissibility
Key criteria remain the evidence of actual influence on the formation of the testator’s will, the presence of dependency, or a lack of will. The individual freedom of action and decision of the testator is at the center of the legal examination.
Consequences for the patient-doctor relationship
The judgment makes clear that a trust relationship between doctor and patient is not fundamentally suited to affect the effectiveness of a bequest. The circumstances of the individual case, particularly regarding motivation, intensity of the bond, and any indications of abusive exploitation of the patient’s position, are always decisive.
Conclusion and practical recommendations
The supreme court decision emphasizes the high importance of testamentary freedom in German inheritance law but explicitly leaves open exceptions in cases of abuse and objectively ascertainable immoral circumstances. For those affected – whether estate participants, disabled persons, those in need of care, or relatives – a careful analysis of the facts is always advisable in the tension between self-determination, influence, and professional legal provisions.
The evaluation and enforcement of such claims in inheritance proceedings can raise diverse legal and factual issues. In case of uncertainty regarding the design and contestation of testamentary dispositions or suspected undue influence, it can be advantageous to seek solid support. The lawyers at MTR Legal are available for inquiries regarding inheritance law and related legal areas.
