Stiftung Dethleffs - the struggle to preserve the family heritage

Art was his parents a concern, for Bernd Riedle was art a beautiful minor matter. Nevertheless, he attended during his studies of business administration in Munich together with his friend U. Grosse. almost every week an art gallery. But that was it. The artworks by Fridel Dethleffs-Edelmann and by Ursula Dethleffs were rare for him a theme: The paintings of his aunt Fridel were still politically controversial, to Ursula, the ratio was kinship. Ulm was of Isny ​​90 km - that was far. They met infrequently. Only when he was moved to Isny ​​and invited by the family Dethleffs to many exhibitions of SOB, his eye for the art really opened.

Since 1994, Riedle is responsible for the art collection Dethleffs - after the notarized contract of inheritance of the family Dethleffs of 1961. The most important issue of this Treaty between Arist, Fridel and Ursula was in 1961, however, not the art, but: legal inheritance save for daughter Ursula, after the death of parents. From the assets, therefore the majority has been overwritten on Ursula in the contract. However, the parents retain the right to use the assets. In addition, had any subsequent changes as donation, foundation, etc. are always certified jointly by the surviving family members. Arist Dethleffs as well as Ursula Dethleffs could after the death of F. Dethleffs-Edelmann (24 September 1982) is not alone, but determine only together over the family fortune. Since Ursula two years before her father on May 07. died in 1994, they alone could not establish legally binding foundation with assets of Dethleffs family.

Nevertheless, the terminally ill Ursula Dethleffs was moved up to the 20.04.1994 from consultants to let notarize a foundation with substantial parts of the family fortune by a notary: the & quot; Friedel Dethleffs-Edelmann and Ursula Dethleffs Foundation & quot; .

Ursula Dethleffs, Chanted witch<br>WooRelief, 1990<br>WVZ: 224046

Since Ursula - her cousin Bernd Riedle - had appointed a notary to the executor before her death, he had to consider whether the numerous registered private claims on the "estate Ursula Dethleffs" would be lawful. From the law firm Zeifang & amp; Partner in Ravensburg was created on the basis of the agreement as to succession from 1961 together with the Foundation Agreement dated 20.04.1994 the opinion on 4 May 1994th The Advisory Board of the Foundation for the Management and surprising, but unambiguous result:

  1. All claims due to donations, etc. by Ursula Dethleffs are ineffective if they had not been authenticated and therefore of her father Arist Dethleffs notarized writing or were subsequently approved by him.
  2. Foundation is ineffective - it contradicts the valid since 1961, unchanged Erbvertrag .

    The foundation had to be repealed by the notary. & nbsp;
    objections of competent foundations Regierungspräsidium Tübingen did not exist

    Some consultants - especially Prof. Dr. Hans Hofstätter.- disagreed violently. They asked: Had Riedle not - despite the valid inheritance contract - must meet the conflicting wishes of terminally ill Ursula Dethleffs? Was the blind Arist Dethleffs not overwhelmed? Why Riedle may reject the establishment of the foundation?

    Here Riedle had nothing rejected. Had rejected the court -. It was true the opinion of the lawyers to but

    That did not change the fact that some "notables" to Riedle made mood. It was believed well with the assertion that he was a Erbschleicher to him can still impose the approval of the Foundation - as previously was Ursula Dethleffs "advise"
    Neither a note was still an invoice for consulting over 50,000 DM. found in the estate of Ursula Dethleffs. She had been created after the death of Ursula Dethleffs. She was still paid because Arist Dethleffs explained: "One should the ox that threshes not prohibit the mouth." This referred to his gratitude for scientific work. This "fee" was not thanked Arist Dethleffs by the recipient.

PS: Fridel Dethleffs-Edelmann and Ursula have always insisted that the first name "Fridel" and not as usual "Friedel" was written. It is therefore incomprehensible for each criminologist that has been misused in the name of the foundation of the first name.