Unclear wills are interpreted first. Section 553 ABGB separates wording, true intention and later challenge.
Mag. Bernhard Brandauer
Attorney · BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte, Salzburg
Inheritance matters are handled by Mag. Bernhard Brandauer together with a coordinated team. We examine the will, compulsory portion, gifts and deadlines and tell you clearly where you stand.
An unclear phrase in a will raises three separate questions: what do the words mean, which intention is at least indicated in the document, and is there also a mistake or conflict with another testamentary document?
Section 553 ABGB provides the sequence. The ordinary meaning of the words is the starting point. A special meaning and the testator's true intention matter only where the wording of the disposition gives them at least an indication. This article explains how to prepare that focused review under Austrian law.
The short assessment separates an ambiguous passage, conflicting documents and a possible mistake.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
Separate the disputed passage, all other testamentary documents and the alleged intention before choosing a next step.
Mark the unclear passage and begin with the ordinary meaning of its words. If a special meaning is claimed, support it with the will, earlier statements or identifiable circumstances rather than with an assumption alone.
Place every will, codicil and supplement side by side with its date, form and complete wording. Then ask whether the later document regulates the same gift anew or merely adds to the earlier one. Do not hide a conflict by selecting only the document that favours one side.
A difficult sentence is first an interpretation issue. Section 570 ABGB concerns a substantial mistake about the person intended or the thing given. Record separately what the document says and which mistake is alleged.
Read the disputed passage first as the words would ordinarily be understood. A private meaning becomes relevant only if the testator recognisably used an expression in a different sense.
A useful review compares the exact passage, the special meaning claimed by a party and the circumstances said to support that reading. A general recollection of family conversations does not by itself replace the required textual connection.
Section 553 ABGB directs attention to the testator's true intention. Interpretation cannot, however, detach that intention entirely from the document: the wording must at least indicate it. The question is therefore not only what the testator probably meant, but whether the disposition gives that meaning a linguistic starting point.
The interpretation should allow the intended result and preserve the testamentary disposition at least in part. A single unclear gift may therefore be clarified without unnecessarily extending the dispute to provisions that are already clear.
When a will, codicil or later supplement exists, every document belongs in the comparison. Check its date, form, complete wording and whether the later statement changes the same gift or addresses a different point.
Make a table of the differing passages and the result each party draws from them. This shows whether there is a true contradiction or whether both provisions can operate together. The shortcut that the last will always decides is not a substitute for that analysis.
A difficult expression does not by itself establish that the testator made a substantial mistake. Under section 570 ABGB, the issue may arise in particular where the person intended or the thing given was mistaken.
Separate the meaning of the disposition from the alleged misconception. Record the person or thing concerned, the relevant document and the evidence for the alleged mistake before drawing conclusions about a possible challenge.
In inheritance law, deadlines and evidence decide. Call us directly or send an email, callback within one business day.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 662 6280000