Disinheritance for Grober Undank: § 530 BGB vs § 2333 BGB

Why "disinheritance for Grober Undank" means two completely different things

When clients come into my office and say "I want to disinherit my child for Grober Undank", my first job is to understand what they mean. Behind the term sit two legally separate instruments that are often confused: revocation of a Schenkung under § 530 of the German Civil Code (Buergerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) and Pflichtteilsentziehung under § 2333 BGB. Both deal with gross ingratitude — but their preconditions, deadlines and legal consequences differ markedly.

The most common mistake in advisory practice: a father gifted a house to his son five years ago, now he feels neglected and insulted — and wants the house back. Only at the second meeting does it emerge that he also wants to withdraw the Pflichtteil (compulsory share under § 2303 BGB). These are two different levers with two different thresholds, and in 2026 the success rate of both routes is far lower than most clients expect.

This article clears up the confusion and shows in which constellations which provision bites — and where you, as testator or donor, no longer have any real leverage.

§ 530 BGB: revoking a Schenkung for Grober Undank

The Schenkungswiderruf under § 530 BGB is the sharper and more precise lever — provided the asset was in fact gifted during lifetime. Under § 530 Abs. 1 BGB the donor can revoke the Schenkung "if the donee, through serious misconduct against the donor or a close relative of the donor, is guilty of gross ingratitude".

What counts as "serious misconduct"?

Case law requires both an objectively significant misconduct and a subjective attitude of ingratitude. Both must be present. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in its leading judgment BGH 13.11.2012 — file no. X ZR 80/11 sharpened the threshold: "the donor's right of revocation for gross ingratitude is tied to the breach of the obligation to show gratitude-based consideration for the donor's concerns, which the donor may expect from the donee. Whether the donee has failed to meet these expectations in an unacceptable way must be assessed on the basis of an overall appraisal of all relevant circumstances of the individual case." So the BGH demands a full case-by-case review — generic accusations are not enough. Acknowledged constellations from practice:

• Physical assault on the donor or their spouse
• Serious, groundless insults or defamatory statements
• A threat to life
• A false criminal complaint against the donor
• For donors with serious care needs: persistent refusal of promised or self-evident help (where the donor depends on it and no one else can step in)

What is not enough: a mere break of contact, normal family quarrels, occasional offences, differing political views or life decisions that displease the donor.

The 1-year deadline under § 532 BGB (critical!)

This is the central stumbling block: under § 532 BGB the revocation is excluded if one year has passed since the moment when the donor obtained knowledge of the facts giving rise to their right. One year — not three, not five. In my advisory practice clients regularly only react after two or three years — by which point the train has left, regardless of how serious the misconduct was.

§ 2333 BGB: Pflichtteilsentziehung — the much narrower route

While § 530 BGB unwinds a Schenkung during lifetime, § 2333 BGB governs something fundamentally different: the withdrawal of the Pflichtteil (compulsory share) after death. The reform act of 2010 modernised the catalogue of grounds and significantly narrowed it. Today the Pflichtteil can only be withdrawn if the Pflichtteilsberechtigter (person entitled to the Pflichtteil):

1. attempts the life of the testator, spouse, another descendant or a person of similar closeness,
2. commits a crime or a serious wilful misdemeanour against any of those persons,
3. wilfully breaches the statutory maintenance duty owed to the testator, or
4. is convicted of a wilful offence to a custodial sentence of at least one year without suspension, and participation in the estate is therefore unreasonable for the testator.

The term "Grober Undank" no longer appears explicitly in the statutory text — it was removed in 2010. So whoever today wishes to "disinherit for Grober Undank" must establish one of the four concrete grounds at the moment of the Erbfall. A more detailed exposition can be found in our guide on disinheritance 2026: preconditions, Pflichtteil and consequences.

Form and burden of proof

The withdrawal must be set out in the will in writing and with a specific reason (§ 2336 BGB). "My son is an ingrate" is not enough. What is needed is a description of the facts that supports the statutory element.

The burden of proof lies with the party relying on the withdrawal — typically the appointed heir who wants to refuse the Pflichtteil. Once the testator has died, they are no longer available as a witness. That is the reason why disinheritance for break of contact fails in most cases: there is simply no usable evidence.

Direct comparison: § 530 BGB vs § 2333 BGB

The following table shows the key differences at a glance.

In my advisory practice I often see clients trying to pull both levers in combination, without checking the different preconditions. The result: double work, double legal fees — and at the end both motions dismissed.

Worked example with figures: when both routes have to be checked

Picture the following situation: a 72-year-old father transferred a multi-family house worth EUR 850,000 to his daughter in 2018 and reserved a lifelong Niessbrauch (usufruct). In February 2025 a heated dispute breaks out, the daughter threatens the father severely and consciously cuts herself off from the family. In April 2025 the father seeks legal advice — wanting both the house back and the Pflichtteil withdrawn.

Review under § 530 BGB: the threat is "serious misconduct". The father gained knowledge in February; by April 2025 only two months have passed — the 1-year deadline still runs. Revocation is possible. Consequence: re-transfer of the house, the Niessbrauch falls away automatically.

Review under § 2333 BGB: threats alone are not necessarily enough — what matters is whether there is a "serious wilful misdemeanour against the testator" or a criminal conviction in prospect. The father would need to file a complaint and wait for the criminal process. Without a criminal conviction the Pflichtteilsentziehung is risky.

Tax consequence of the Schenkungswiderruf: the Schenkungsteuer (gift tax) paid at the time is refunded under § 29 ErbStG, provided the Schenkung is in fact unwound. The Pflichtteil-relevant value of the Schenkung flows back into the estate — see also the detailed treatment in the article on Pflichtteil and its calculation.

Economic balance: what both routes deliver in the worked example

The following table shows the monetary consequence of both routes for a house gift of EUR 850,000 and a residual estate of EUR 400,000 (accounts, securities), with two children (daughter as donee, son as disinherited):

Constitutional limits: what the BVerfG says on Pflichtteilsergaenzung

The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) in its non-acceptance decision of 26.11.2018 (1 BvR 1511/14) clarified that the exception under § 2325 Abs. 3 Satz 3 BGB for gifts to a spouse — under which the 10-year period for the Pflichtteilsergaenzung claim does not begin to run — violates neither Art. 6 Abs. 1 GG nor the constitutional guarantee of inheritance under Art. 14 Abs. 1 GG. For practice this means: anyone using Schenkungen to a spouse as a structuring tool must reckon with the fact that the children's Pflichtteilsergaenzung claims do not "burn off" with time.

Transferred to the Grober Undank context this means: even if the Pflichtteilsentziehung under § 2333 BGB fails, Schenkungen to the spouse can still trigger a Pflichtteilsergaenzung claim of the "ungrateful" child.

Common mistakes in practice (and how to avoid them)

From around twenty years of advisory practice four typical mistakes have crystallised:

Mistake 1: vague wording in the will. "I withdraw the Pflichtteil from my son for Grober Undank" is regularly held by the courts to be ineffective, because § 2336 BGB requires the specific ground of withdrawal. What works: "I withdraw the Pflichtteil from my son Max because on 15 March 2024 he physically assaulted me and was charged by the police (file no. XYZ) with criminal damage."

Mistake 2: late reaction to misconduct around a Schenkung. The 1-year deadline under § 532 BGB starts with positive knowledge. Whoever waits to see whether "things calm down" loses the claim entirely after 12 months.

Mistake 3: confusing Schenkung and inheritance. A Schenkung that is revoked is not "retroactively disinherited" — it is unwound under civil law. Inheritance-wise the Pflichtteil claim remains unaffected.

Mistake 4: lack of clarity on forgiveness. Under § 532 BGB and § 2337 BGB forgiveness extinguishes both revocation and withdrawal. Whoever resumes contact and exchanges presents after a quarrel can no longer rely on the original misconduct. If you want to return to the statutory order of succession, an overview can be found in our article on statutory succession without a will.

What to do concretely when there is a case of Grober Undank

If you, as donor or testator, are in such a situation, I recommend a three-step approach:

Step 1: document — immediately. Record in writing what happened when, with witnesses and proof (messages, complaints, medical certificates). Without documentation neither route wins in court.

Step 2: check deadlines. The 1-year deadline under § 530 BGB starts with knowledge. If the event is less than a year ago, speed is essential.

Step 3: get legal support. Both the revocation of a real-estate Schenkung and an effective Pflichtteilsentziehung in the will are not DIY topics. The cost of bad wording exceeds the legal fees many times over.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between § 530 BGB and § 2333 BGB?

§ 530 BGB governs the revocation of a Schenkung during lifetime for Grober Undank — within 1 year of knowledge. § 2333 BGB governs the Pflichtteilsentziehung in the will after death — only on a closed catalogue of grave acts such as an attempt on life, crimes against the testator or a custodial sentence of at least 1 year without suspension.

Is a break of contact enough for a Pflichtteilsentziehung for Grober Undank?

No. A break of contact alone meets none of the four grounds under § 2333 BGB. Even after the 2010 reform the BGH has confirmed that mere refusal of contact — even over decades — is not enough to withdraw the Pflichtteil.

How much time do I have to revoke a Schenkung for Grober Undank?

Exactly 1 year from the moment you, as donor, obtained knowledge of the misconduct (§ 532 BGB). This deadline cannot be extended — not by illness, not by legal negotiations.

Can the heir revoke the Schenkung after the donor's death?

As a rule no. § 530 Abs. 2 BGB restricts the heirs' revocation right strictly: they can only revoke if the donee wilfully and unlawfully killed the donor or prevented the revocation. For "ordinary" Grober Undank during lifetime, the revocation right lapses on death.

Does the Pflichtteilsberechtigter lose everything on an effective withdrawal?

Yes. If the Pflichtteilsentziehung under § 2333 BGB is effective, the Pflichtteilsberechtigter's claim falls away entirely — not just a reduction. The Pflichtteilsergaenzung claim under § 2325 BGB can however be separately affected if there are Schenkungen to third parties.

What happens to the Schenkungsteuer if I revoke the Schenkung?

Under § 29 ErbStG the Schenkungsteuer paid at the time is refunded, provided the Schenkung is actually unwound and the original status restored. Precondition: a valid revocation under § 530 BGB. The refund must be applied for actively with the tax office.

Can I include Grober Undank in the will as a precaution?

Yes, but unspecific "reserve clauses" are invalid. § 2336 BGB requires the specific ground at the moment of the testamentary disposition. A blanket reserve wording "in case my child behaves unworthily" does not hold. You can however change the will at any time when a specific occasion arises.

Advice on a specific case: book a first meeting

Grober Undank is one of the most emotionally difficult topics in inheritance law — and at the same time one of the technically most demanding. Distinguishing between § 530 BGB and § 2333 BGB decides whether you have any legal lever at all and, if so, which one. In my practice we check both routes in parallel in a structured first meeting and build a workable strategy — including evidence-securing, deadline control and, where needed, redrafting of the will.

If you want to clarify a concrete situation, book a first meeting at sprichmit.florian-enders.de. I take 45 minutes, go through your case, and tell you honestly whether a Schenkungswiderruf or a Pflichtteilsentziehung is realistic in your case — or whether other structuring routes are more sensible.