Business work in expectation of inheritance: remuneration after a failed benefit

Section 1152 of the Austrian Civil Code links the presumption of remuneration to a contract. If an activity was agreed, no remuneration was fixed and unpaid performance was not agreed, reasonable remuneration is treated as agreed. The first question is therefore which activity was owed and what relationship existed between the parties.

Employment, a service arrangement, work in the common household and family help can appear alongside each other in a family business. The label alone is not decisive. Regular hours, instructions, business responsibility, accounts and the actual organisation of the work provide important indicators.

Expressly free help falls outside the remuneration presumption. A later prospect of inheritance also does not replace an agreement on ongoing payment. The assessment may differ where a specific consideration or binding transfer was promised in addition to the inheritance expectation.

An expectation of inheritance initially describes hope for a later transfer of assets. A claim requires additional facts. The question is whether the deceased promised a specific benefit, linked the work to it and accepted that connection with the other person.

The form of the benefit and the planned timing matter. A will, a transfer agreement, a family arrangement or repeated clear statements each provide different evidence. The actual course of the business must also fit the alleged agreement.

The estate does not automatically contain the promised benefit. The review of business work therefore remains focused on the agreement, the performance and the alleged consideration. Questions about company valuation or the compulsory portion may arise alongside it, but they form separate areas of review.

Section 1435 of the Austrian Civil Code permits the recovery of things given as a debt when the legal basis for retaining them has ceased. In the context of work in a family business, it may therefore be necessary to examine whether performance was made for a specific later purpose and that purpose did not occur.

This examination requires a close factual connection. The work must have been performed with a view to the specific benefit. A general hope of later consideration within the family will usually not be enough. The legal construction must also fit the nature of the performance.

There is no standard solution for calculating a possible equalisation. The agreed or expected consideration, the duration and quality of the work, the economic benefit and benefits already received must be examined. These points need to remain separate in the legal assessment.

In a dispute, saying that someone always helped in the business will usually not be enough. A comprehensible chronology is needed. It should record when the work began and ended, the duties, working hours, responsibilities, agreements and expected benefit.

Messages, letters, calendars, schedules, invoices, transfers, accounting records, company documents and witness evidence may help. The review should also ask who benefited from the work and which tasks would otherwise have been performed by paid staff.

Keep business and estate documents in separate groups. An estate inventory may help establish assets and liabilities. It does not replace evidence of the work or the alleged agreement.

A first assessment starts with the work, not with the later value of the business. Record the nature, extent, responsibility and duration of the activity. Then examine the agreed consideration and any payments, benefits in kind or other advantages already provided.

The value of the failed benefit may matter for the failure-of-purpose analysis. It does not automatically determine the amount of a remuneration claim. Valuing a business, property or company shares follows its own questions and cannot replace the examination of the work.

For estate assets, clarify whether the main issue is ownership, a legacy or work performed. The article on jewellery, art and family items concerns a different evidence question. Company shares require the separate classification explained in the article on company shares in an estate.

Care services may involve a care legacy or an equalisation under their own conditions. They must be kept separate from work in the business. The article on care legacy claims addresses the relevant services and evidence.

A transfer in return for care or another consideration also requires a different examination from work performed in a business. The article on transfer, care services and equalisation covers that constellation. Estate property raises its own questions about valuation, use and sale, as explained in the article on estate property.

The distinction prevents an unclear family history from being mixed with several different legal bases. The assessment should identify whether work, care, a transfer, a legacy or business value is at the centre of the dispute.

Start with a timeline. Record each significant work phase, the arrangement at the time, the expected benefit, benefits received and when the benefit failed. Add the available evidence and mark statements that still depend on witnesses.

Then classify the legal question. Was the issue ongoing remuneration, a specific consideration for the work or performance for a later purpose? This classification determines which facts and documents matter most for the next review.

For a meeting with a lawyer, prepare the timeline, agreements, business records, estate documents and an overview of benefits already received. This makes it possible to examine the basis of the claim in a focused way.