Site designed and created by Razvan Paraianu.

© Created in January 2001, Last revised: January 3, 2004

APPENDIX XXVII

HOW WILLS ARE RESPECTED IN HUNGARY

A.

Michal Bernát, a native of Bella in the county of 'Turócz, who died on August 13,1896, provided under the terms of his will for payment of 600 crowns (£25) on behalf of poor Slovak school children. The money was to be handed over to Dr. Paul Mudron, one of the leading Slovak advocates, and to be applied according to his discretion.

The authorities (Royal Districtual Court) recognized all the other legacies of the will, but not that relating to the Slovak school children in question. After the delays usual in Hungarian legal proceedings, the Court decided on January 9, 1898, that the money should be assigned not to Dr. Mudroň, as the will prescribed, but to the Magyar School Inspector. The court argued as follows : 'There is no "association of Slovak school children" possessing statutes sanctioned by the Minister,[1] hence this association, having no legal status, cannot inherit or receive legacies. The money, having been left not to Mudroň, but to the Slovak school children, who have no legal status, cannot be assigned to Mudroň, since there is no one to whom he could hand it over and no one to whom he could render account. The testator clearly had his own neighbourhood in mind, in other words the children of Turócz. In matters concern­ing the school children of Turócz the Royal Inspector of Schools is alone qualified to decide, and the money must therefore be assigned to him, not to Dr. Mudroň.'

Dr. Mudroň brought the following appeal against this decision. 'The court is bound to the provision of the will, and as testator had confidence in Mudroň and left the money to be disposed of by him, it cannot be assigned to any other person. The court argues that there is no "association of Slovak school children," but the will says nothing of an association, but only of "the school children." Moreover, if these school children have a legal status in the event of the money being assigned to the Inspector, they must also have this legal status in the event of its being assigned to Mudroň. If the school children really have no legal status, then the legacy is invalid, and the money falls to the legal heirs — in this case to the widow.'

None the less the Royal Table (court of second instance), on January 26, 1899, confirmed the lower court's decision and further appeal was impossible.

A claim was then brought before the Sedrial Court of Neusohl, summoning the Royal Inspector to hand over the 600 crowns to Paul Mudroň for the purposes of the will. This court, on October 25, 1899, decided in favour of Dr. Mudroň, and ordered the Inspector to disgorge on the ground that the provisions of the will must be strictly observed.

The Inspector in his turn appealed against this decision, and on May 27, 1903, the Royal Table in Budapest reversed the finding of the lower court, rejected Mudroň's claim, and found him liable for 220 crowns costs. The money, argued the Table, is to be regarded as a trust. Since, however, a trust can only exist with the sanction of the authorities, this legacy which possesses no such sanction cannot be regarded as existing, and the claim must therefore be rejected.

Against this finding a further appeal was made to the Curia as court of supreme instance, on the following grounds. 'The decision of the lower court rests on the assumption that the legacy is a trust. This assumption cannot be maintained, since the capital was to be paid out at once, while a trust carries with it the idea of duration of the capital. Bernat's will orders the pay­ment of 600 crowns to Mudroň, to be assigned by him at his discretion to deserving Slovak pupils. Only in this event can the will be said to have been respected.'

On September 7, 1903, the Curia confirmed the decision of the Table. After seven years' legal proceedings, the money remained definitely in the hands of the enemy, and has been used to further Magyarizing tendencies, instead of those Slovak national sentiments which Bernát had at heart.

B.

Matthias Čvikota, a native of Valcsa in the county of Turócz, died on April 25, 1903, leaving a fortune of 160,000 crowns (£6,660), which he had acquired as a merchant in Russia. Having no family, he decided to leave the entire sum "to the Slovak nation," for educational and other purposes. As, however, Hungarian law does not recognize the existence of any such thing as a Slovak nation, he bequeathed the money, acting on legal advice, to three leading Slovaks — Ambro Pietor, Fráňo Zachar, and Dr. Imre Korauš, and described in a private letter to the latter the manner in which he wished the sum to be applied, exclusively in the interests of Slovak culture.

The Vice-Sheriff of Turócz County, Coloman Beniczky, endeavoured to upset the will. It was discovered that a brother of Čvikota was still alive, and he was with some difficulty unearthed at Cracon. Though an altogether wortliless and dilapidated character, Ferdin and Čvikota, when brought before Beniczky, firmly declined to contest a will which represented his brother's last wishes. As a result of this an inquiry was instituted into Ferdinand Čvikota's state of health, and two county doctors, John Haas and Ernest Lax, declared him irresponsible for his actions. Two other doctors, John Petrikovič and John Simko, reported him as normal and sane, but their opinion was overruled. The County Fiscal insti­tuted proceedings with a view to placing Čvikota under control. The Court ordered his examination by its medical officer Dr. Kol­czonay, who found Čvikota to be weak-minded owing to excess of alcohol. The beneficiaries under the will then had Čvikota examined by a Budapest specialist Dr. Németh, who after six days' inquiry decided that despite clear traces of alcoholic excess he was fully responsible in a legal sense. Before the final decision had been reached, Cvikota died. The court then decided that the bene­ficiaries under the will must bear the entire costs of the action on the ground, that Cvikota would have had to be placed under control.

The Vice-Sheriff then summoned some surviving distant relatives of Čvikota, and induced them to contest the will. The Court of first instance admitted their plea, annulled the will, and ordered the beneficiaries under the will to bear the costs. An appeal was lodged against this decision, but the final stage in the proceedings has not yet been reached.

Meanwhile five years have elapsed since Čvikota's death, and his wishes have so far been rendered nugatory. The costs of these endless legal proceedings are naturally very heavy, and even if the will is finally recognized, it may unhappily be taken for granted that they will have to be borne not by the petitioners, but by the beneficiaries. Thus either the clear sense of the will will be violated, or the legal expenses will exhaust the greater part of the bequest; in either case the Slovaks will be unjustly de­prived of a sum of money (£6,600) which might have rendered invaluable services in the furtherance of Slovak culture and education. And all this takes place in the twentieth century in a state which prides itself upon its ancient constitution and its liberal institutions.