CONTRACTUAL SUCCESSION LEGAL NORMS FUNCTIONALIZATION ISSUES
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Published:
Dec 30, 2025
Abstract
Contractual succession, in contrast to succession by law and testament, possesses with a combined structure which include contracts and legal deals with mortis causa intention. By this reason, norms, which establish future inheritance in different contracts and deals, do not possess with necessary functionality degree, required for contractual succession substantive law. Contractual succession norms, which often contain in family law, testamentary law and in obligation law spheres, do not form future inheritance objects taking into account the requirements of these areas of legal regulation. By this reason mentioned article subject matter related to analyze the impact of norms of different legal nature impact on the objects of legal regulation of contractual succession and, accordingly, problematic situations identification.
How to Cite
Pilipson, E. (2025). CONTRACTUAL SUCCESSION LEGAL NORMS FUNCTIONALIZATION ISSUES. Baltic Journal of Legal and Social Sciences, (4), 28-41. https://doi.org/10.30525/2592-8813-2025-4-4
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Keywords
applicable law, contractual succession, inheritance, inheritance agreement, inheritance contract
References
1. Israeli Succession Law, 5725-1965. With amendments.
2. Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia. Enacted: 28.01.1937. In force: 01.09.1992. Published: Valdības Vēstnesis, 41, 20.02.1937. With amendments.
3. Commercial Law of the Republic of Latvia. Enacted: 13.04.2000. In force: 01.01.2002.
4. Published: Latvijas Vēstnesis, 158/160, 04.05.2000. With amendments.
5. Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. 1975 Ch. 63. Enacted and in force: 12.11.1975. With amendments.
6. Swiss Civil Code. Adopted on May 28, 1904. Entered into force on December 10, 1907. Published: BBl 1904 IV 1, 1907 VI 367. With amendments.
7. Ralph Michaels. The functional method of comparative law. Duke Law Scholarship Repository // https:// scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/faculty_scholarship/article/2033/&-path_info=Functional_Method_of_Comparative_Law.pdf (09.12.2025).
8. Senāta Civilā Kasācijas Department Spriedumi // Tieslietu Ministers Vestneša pielikums . – Riga : Jūl. Petersona spiestuve, 1924.
9. Sitkoff Robert H. An Agency Costs theory of trust law // Cornell Law Review, 2004; Vol.89.
10. Hansmann Henry. Kraakman Reiner. The Essential Role of Organizational Law // The Yale Law Journal, 2000: Vol. 110.
11. Passler Richard G. Comparative Impairment: Louisiana's New Methodology for Resolving Conflicts of Law // Louisiana Law Review, 1991; Vol.52. Nr. 2 .
12. Hay Herma Hill. The Use of Comparative Impairment to Resolve True Conflicts: An Evaluation of the California Experience // California Law Review, 1980; Vol. 68. Nr.4.
13. The Baltic Private Law Code. Article 1701. The right of contractual succession has priority over the right of inheritance by will. The two aforementioned rights of inheritance have priority over inheritance by law. In Vidzeme, these three inheritance rights may coexist on the basis that one specified portion of the entire estate (e.g., half, a third, a quarter, etc.) is due to the testamentary heirs, the second portion to the contractual heirs, and the third portion to the legal heirs. In Kurzeme, all three types of inheritance may also coexist simultaneously; however, statute inheritance combining is not permitted. The Baltic Private Law Code. Rīga, 1928.
14. Some Doubts and Questions in the Law especially of Scotland as well, some decisions of the lords of Council and Sessions. Ed. by Sir John Nisbet of Dirleton .– Ann Arbor, 2011.
15. James Cable Partners v. City of Jamestown. Tenn., 822 F. Supp. 476 (M.D. Tenn. 1993).
16. Daniel E. Troy. Retroactive Legislation. Washington: the AEI Press, 1998.
17. Wilson v. Estate of W. L. Kings. 131 Ind. App. 412 (1960). 170 N.E.2d 63.
18. Ross Ashby, William. An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall, 1957.
19. Zekoll Joachim., Reimann Matthias. Introduction to German Law. 2nd ed. Wolters Kluwer, 2005.
20. Briedis V. Mantojuma pieņemšana un mantojuma atraidīšana. Riga, 1939.g.
21. Judgment of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate, case No. SKC-382/2007.
22. Zariņš J. Mantojuma dalīšana tiesas ceļā . Rīga , 1935.g.
23. Ross Ashby William (with an introduction by Jeffrey Goldstein). Variety, Constraint, and the Law of Requisite Variety// E: CO, 2011; Vol. 13.
24. Sawyer Caroline. Spero Miriam. Succession, Wills and Probate. 3rd ed. Abington: Routledge. 2015.
25. Edwards Richard., Stockwell Nigel. Trusts and Equity. 7th ed. Harlow: Longman, 2005.
26. Steinbuch, Robert. An Empirical Analysis of Reversal Rates in the Eighth Circuit during 2008 // Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2009; 41(1).
27. Haas Ulrich: Die Europäische Zuständigkeitsordnung in Erbsachen. Jud/Rechberger/Reichelt, Kollisionsrecht in der Europäischen Union. Wien, 2008.
28. Bertrand d'Argentré. Commentaire des customs de Bretagne, Paris, 1621.
2. Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia. Enacted: 28.01.1937. In force: 01.09.1992. Published: Valdības Vēstnesis, 41, 20.02.1937. With amendments.
3. Commercial Law of the Republic of Latvia. Enacted: 13.04.2000. In force: 01.01.2002.
4. Published: Latvijas Vēstnesis, 158/160, 04.05.2000. With amendments.
5. Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. 1975 Ch. 63. Enacted and in force: 12.11.1975. With amendments.
6. Swiss Civil Code. Adopted on May 28, 1904. Entered into force on December 10, 1907. Published: BBl 1904 IV 1, 1907 VI 367. With amendments.
7. Ralph Michaels. The functional method of comparative law. Duke Law Scholarship Repository // https:// scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/faculty_scholarship/article/2033/&-path_info=Functional_Method_of_Comparative_Law.pdf (09.12.2025).
8. Senāta Civilā Kasācijas Department Spriedumi // Tieslietu Ministers Vestneša pielikums . – Riga : Jūl. Petersona spiestuve, 1924.
9. Sitkoff Robert H. An Agency Costs theory of trust law // Cornell Law Review, 2004; Vol.89.
10. Hansmann Henry. Kraakman Reiner. The Essential Role of Organizational Law // The Yale Law Journal, 2000: Vol. 110.
11. Passler Richard G. Comparative Impairment: Louisiana's New Methodology for Resolving Conflicts of Law // Louisiana Law Review, 1991; Vol.52. Nr. 2 .
12. Hay Herma Hill. The Use of Comparative Impairment to Resolve True Conflicts: An Evaluation of the California Experience // California Law Review, 1980; Vol. 68. Nr.4.
13. The Baltic Private Law Code. Article 1701. The right of contractual succession has priority over the right of inheritance by will. The two aforementioned rights of inheritance have priority over inheritance by law. In Vidzeme, these three inheritance rights may coexist on the basis that one specified portion of the entire estate (e.g., half, a third, a quarter, etc.) is due to the testamentary heirs, the second portion to the contractual heirs, and the third portion to the legal heirs. In Kurzeme, all three types of inheritance may also coexist simultaneously; however, statute inheritance combining is not permitted. The Baltic Private Law Code. Rīga, 1928.
14. Some Doubts and Questions in the Law especially of Scotland as well, some decisions of the lords of Council and Sessions. Ed. by Sir John Nisbet of Dirleton .– Ann Arbor, 2011.
15. James Cable Partners v. City of Jamestown. Tenn., 822 F. Supp. 476 (M.D. Tenn. 1993).
16. Daniel E. Troy. Retroactive Legislation. Washington: the AEI Press, 1998.
17. Wilson v. Estate of W. L. Kings. 131 Ind. App. 412 (1960). 170 N.E.2d 63.
18. Ross Ashby, William. An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall, 1957.
19. Zekoll Joachim., Reimann Matthias. Introduction to German Law. 2nd ed. Wolters Kluwer, 2005.
20. Briedis V. Mantojuma pieņemšana un mantojuma atraidīšana. Riga, 1939.g.
21. Judgment of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate, case No. SKC-382/2007.
22. Zariņš J. Mantojuma dalīšana tiesas ceļā . Rīga , 1935.g.
23. Ross Ashby William (with an introduction by Jeffrey Goldstein). Variety, Constraint, and the Law of Requisite Variety// E: CO, 2011; Vol. 13.
24. Sawyer Caroline. Spero Miriam. Succession, Wills and Probate. 3rd ed. Abington: Routledge. 2015.
25. Edwards Richard., Stockwell Nigel. Trusts and Equity. 7th ed. Harlow: Longman, 2005.
26. Steinbuch, Robert. An Empirical Analysis of Reversal Rates in the Eighth Circuit during 2008 // Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2009; 41(1).
27. Haas Ulrich: Die Europäische Zuständigkeitsordnung in Erbsachen. Jud/Rechberger/Reichelt, Kollisionsrecht in der Europäischen Union. Wien, 2008.
28. Bertrand d'Argentré. Commentaire des customs de Bretagne, Paris, 1621.