When a parent dies, the will often stipulates that the surviving spouse may settle the estate and that the children will only receive their share of the inheritance in cash at a later date. In the case of a so-called quasi-statutory distribution, the surviving spouse is regularly granted extensive powers as executor and administrator.
But how far do these powers extend? Is the surviving spouse permitted to determine the value of the estate independently and, by extension, to set the amount of the children’s monetary claims? And what rights do the children have if they disagree with the valuation applied?
In a judgment of 7 July 2026, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled on this issue. The judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between the administration, valuation and distribution of an estate. What exactly does a quasi-statutory distribution entail, what powers does the surviving spouse have, and what does this judgment mean for the children’s rights?
What is a quasi-statutory distribution?
In a statutory distribution, the surviving spouse receives all the assets of the estate, and the children receive a monetary claim equal to the value of their share of the inheritance. That claim is usually only payable upon the death of the surviving spouse. A will can exclude statutory distribution whilst still achieving the same result, by stipulating that the estate is to be distributed as if statutory distribution were taking place. This is known as a quasi-statutory distribution. The surviving spouse may then allocate all the assets to themselves, and the children receive a monetary claim calculated on the basis of the estate’s balance.
If the couple are married under the community of property regime, there is a further consideration. Upon the death of the first spouse, the matrimonial community is dissolved. Only once it has been established what assets form part of that community and what their value is can it be determined what forms part of the estate.
The law and quasi-statutory distribution
Statutory distribution is governed by Article 4:13 of the Dutch Civil Code. A will may deviate from this. In the case decided by the Court of Appeal, the testator had excluded the statutory distribution and prescribed a quasi-statutory distribution. Her husband had been appointed as executor and administrator of the estate. An administrator of the estate has considerable freedom to manage and settle the estate, even without the cooperation of the other heirs.
The judgment of The Hague Court of Appeal of 7 July 2026 (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:2587)
In this case, the mother died in 2021. She had been married under the regime of full community of property. In her will, she had appointed her husband as heir to 1/100th of the estate and her three children as heirs to the remainder, excluding the statutory distribution and prescribing a quasi-statutory distribution. The husband became the executor and administrator of the estate. In 2024, he too passed away. His son, one of the three children, became the executor of his estate.
Two daughters wished to establish the claim they had against their father arising from their mother’s estate. On appeal, they each claimed a sum of just over 1.2 million euros, plus 6 per cent interest.
On the merits of the case, the Court of Appeal ruled that the statutory division did not apply here, and that therefore the matrimonial community of property had to be divided first, and only then could it be determined what formed part of the mother’s estate. The parties strongly disagreed on this point and on the valuation of the assets. According to the Court of Appeal, whilst the father, as administrator of the estate, enjoyed considerable discretion, he did not have the freedom to determine the value of the assets of the matrimonial community – and thus of the estate – at his own discretion. The fact that he was required to render an account at the end of his administration did not alter this. As the size and composition of the estate could not be determined, the claim could not be calculated either.
Furthermore, the daughters had initially brought their proceedings at first instance before the subdistrict court, whereas they should have brought such proceedings before the district court. The Court of Appeal made it clear that, for claims arising from a quasi-statutory division, they should have initiated summons proceedings at the district court.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the daughters’ claim. The legal costs were compensated.
Practical advice
- First, have the matrimonial property divided. Without a division of the matrimonial property and a clear valuation, your claim against the estate cannot be determined. Make this your first step.
- Choose the correct procedure: Claims arising from a quasi-statutory division must be brought by way of a summons procedure before the district court. Taking the wrong route costs time and money.
- Set out your claim fully and in good time. Amendments or additions at the appeal stage are not always permitted. Include all claims in the initial pleading.
- Have valuations carried out independently. Have the value of the property, business or investments determined by an independent and expert valuer, so that it is not left to a single party involved to do so at their own discretion.
Conclusion
A quasi-statutory division and a settlement administration give the surviving spouse considerable leeway, but not the freedom to determine for themselves the value of the matrimonial property and the estate. For children wishing to establish their claim, it is essential that the matrimonial property is first divided and that the correct procedure is chosen. Timely and expert advice will prevent you from being left empty-handed after years of litigation.
Do you have any questions about your will, your role as an executor or administrator, or the claim you have as a child against the surviving parent? If so, please contact Ms Angelique van den Eshoff of SPEE Advocaten & Mediation. She specialises in personal and family law and inheritance law and will be happy to advise you.
Angelique van den Eshoff, LL.B., solicitor