Uticaj nedozvoljenog motiva na punovažnost testamenta

Abstract

Pošto je testament dobročin pravni posao, zaveštočevi motivi uvek ulaze u kauzu. Ako je zaveštalac prilikom sačinjavanja testamenta bio vođen nedozvoljenim pobudama, takav testament će biti apsolutno ništav. O nedozvoljenoj pobudi se govori u sledećim slučajevima: 1) kada zaveštalac teži da putem testamenta utiče na naslednika ili isporukoprimca na ponašanje koje je samo po sebi u suprotnosti s prinudnim propisima, javnim poretkom i dobrim običajima, 2) kada zaveštalac teži da putem raspolaganja za slučaj smrti utiče na naslednika ili legatara na preduzimanje radnje koja sama po sebi nije u suprotnosti sa javnim poretkom i dobrim običajima, ali to postaje kada se dovede u vezu s imovinskom korišću iz testamenta i 3) kada nagrada ili kazna koju zaveštalac čini putem testamenta nije u harmoniji s javnim poretkom i dobrim običajima. Teret dokazivanja nedozvoljenosti zaveštočevih pobuda pada na ona lica koja se pozivaju na ništavost kao svoju prednost. U slučaju kumulacije dozvoljenih i nedozvoljenih motiva, testament će biti apsolutno ništav samo ako nedozvoljeni motivi budu odlučujuće uticali na zaveštaoca da raspolaže za slučaj smrti.

This paper discusses the influence of a testator's motives on the validity of a will. The introductory explanations deal with Art. 53 of the ZOO (Law on Obligations), which envisages that a prohibited motive will render gratuitous promises null and void if it has essentially influenced the donor's decision to make such a promise. The author goes on to analyze the distinction between the cause and the motive, and the ratio legis of the different treatment of an prohibited motive in contracts and gratuitous promises. In practice, the most important problem is to establish the testator's motives. The motives are the personal domain of the testator and, as such, they may not be known to others. Even so, it is the court's obligation by means of any evidence at all to establish the specific motives that led the testator to draw up his will. The court should seek these indications in the behavior and the personal qualities of the testator, and those of his legal successors and the persons who stand to benefit from the will, and in their mutual relations. The mention of the motives in the will itself is not binding for the court which can establish that the testator disposed of his possessions for reasons other than those he mentioned in his will. At the same time, it is irrelevant whether the motives the testator mentioned in his will are permitted or prohibited. Another problem on the practical level, is with whom the burden of proof lies as to the testator's motives. According to German theory and case, the burden of proof of prohibited motives lies with the persons who invoke the nullity of the will in their interest. For instance, in a will in favor of a mistress, the person who invokes nullity, should prove both the existence of a love affair and the fact that the testator wished by means of his will to reward his mistress for her sexual favors. It may happen that in the same will, there are both permitted and prohibited motives. In that case the outcome of the will depends on whether the prohibited motive played a decisive role in the testator's decision to draw up such a will.