"I Was Deceived, Given Nothing" - Carl-Clemens Veltins in Million-Dollar Inheritance Dispute Loss
Son of Veltin engages in military conflict in pursuit of his claimed inheritance worth millions.
The drawn-out inheritance squabble between the renowned Veltins brewing family has reached a verdict. In court today, the 63-year-old son of the long-time CEO, unfortunately, failed to claim his fair share of the inheritance. As his claim for a statutory portion has lapsed.
Notably, Carl-Clemens Veltins is a scion of one of Germany's most prosperous brewing dynasties. Yet, million-dollar inheritance prospects appear elusive for now. The matriarch explicitly disinherited him per her will, leaving everything to her two sisters.
The ruling, as explained by the judge, was based upon respect for the explicit disinheritance of a child. Any potential claims for a compulsory portion are long past.
Before taking the stand, the 63-year-old Veltins offspring appeared calm and composed despite the impending setback. The substantial dispute, estimated at 30 million euros, required a 360,000 euro deposit for court costs. "It's quite an expensive thing," he replied when asked why he had delayed filing the lawsuit. He argued he was able to do so only after securing financial aid.
The youngest of three siblings attempted to challenge his mother's will, alleging she was of unsound mind when it was drafted. In response, the sisters contested this. The family entrepreneur had overseen the brewery's operations until shortly before her demise, according to her attorneys.
The judge did not support the plaintiff's argument in this regard. There was no evidence to suggest his mother lacked capacity to draft the will. Unsurprisingly, the Veltins sisters has been absent from the trial. One of them, Susanne Veltins, currently runs the brewery alongside her nephew, one of the most famed in Germany.
Brewing disputes and family drama
Ranking third in Germany's most popular beer brands by "Inside" magazine, Veltins is a force to be reckoned with. The brewery in the Hochsauerland district employs over 700 people and boasts a revenue of approximately 460 million euros annually. The legal dispute, the brewery asserts, has not impacted their economic standing, emphasizing it as a private family matter.
In court, the lawyers maintained a tight-lipped approach, focusing on the expiration of claims as their primary argument. A settlement was not under consideration. After the trial, they refrained from commenting on the family feud.
Carl-Clemens Veltins, however, has not shied away from airing family grievances. He painted a picture of a deceitful family, claiming his mother tricked him into waiving his legal claim to inheritance just when he turned 18. Inexperienced and drunk from a night of festivities, he didn't appreciate the repercussions of his signature, he declared.
"If they had known my mother, they would know that no dissent was tolerated," he asserted. Yet, the question of whether his intoxicated signature on the waiver was valid shall not be addressed by the court. It emerged that one has just three years to bring a claim if it is evident that they would otherwise be disinherited.
Even though Carl-Clemens Veltins repeatedly insisted his ignorance, never receiving a will, and being misguided, the court did not sympathize, emphasizing the need for cooperation when enforcing one's rights. The future of peace for the inheritance dispute amongst the Veltins siblings remains uncertain, as an appeal can be filed with the Higher Regional Court.
- Family
- Legal Proceedings
- Inheritance Disputes
- Despite theVerdict, Carl-Clemens Veltins expressed his belief that his mother, in employing community policy, had misled him into surrendering his claim to inheritance at a young age, which strikingly contrasts with the family's prosperous business and employment policy.
- In the wake of the court ruling, the finance aspect of the inheritance dispute has come into focus, with Carl-Clemens Veltins claiming he was only able to seek legal recourse after securing financial aid, raising questions about the transparency and fairness of the business's employment policy.
