The notary's duty of care on the transfer of an inherited home
Executor sells Amsterdam home for €3,300,000 despite heir's objections
The complainant's mother died in August 2021 and, by will, appointed a professional executor-administrator. Under Section 4:171 DCC, that person had independent authority to manage and dispose of the estate assets — without the cooperation of the heirs and without authorisation from the subdistrict court. The complainant and her brother were the sole heirs, each entitled to one half.
In January 2024 the executor-administrator sold the home for €3,300,000. The purchase agreement provided that the transfer would take place on 27 May 2024. This was brought forward to 8 April 2024, without the notaries being able to explain at the hearing why. The assigned notary sent the complainant the draft deed of transfer only on 2 April 2024. The complainant responded the same day: she did not agree and would never sign.
The complainant warned the notaries by email and by letter. She argued that, as a co-owner, she had to give her consent, that she had not received a purchase deed, and that the purchase price was far below the WOZ value (the official property valuation for tax purposes). The notary telephoned the complainant on 5 April — a Friday — and stated that there was no legal impediment and that the transfer would go ahead that Monday. In doing so, he pointed out to her the possibility of engaging a lawyer. On 8 April the notary executed the deed of transfer.
Court of appeal: executor authorised, but notaries breached their duty of care
The court of appeal held at the outset that, under Section 4:171(1) DCC, the executor-administrator had exclusive authority to sell and transfer the home. The fact that the complainant and her brother were registered as owners in the Land Registry (Kadaster) did not alter this. Consent or a power of attorney from the heirs was not required. On this point the complainant's complaints failed.
The complaint that the notaries had carried out insufficient investigation into the purchase price also had no merit. The notaries had made enquiries with the estate agent involved, who gave a plausible explanation for the lower price: the condition of the home, foundation problems and asbestos. The court of appeal did not consider further investigation necessary. Complaints about the brother's identity, the failure to receive the purchase deed, incorrect ground-lease dates and alleged tax evasion were likewise held to be unfounded.
Where matters did go wrong was in the timing of the provision of information. The notarial duty of care under Section 17 of the Dutch Notaries Act (Wna) requires notaries to serve the interests of all parties involved impartially and with the greatest possible care — including those of parties not appearing at the deed. The court of appeal held that six days was too short, all the more so in a succession matter in which a successor executor had already been appointed — a signal that underlying disputes were at play. Moreover, the transfer date had been brought forward considerably compared with the purchase deed, without the notaries being able to assume that the complainant was aware of this.
The referral to a lawyer came only on Friday 5 April, the same day on which the notaries gave definitive notice that the transfer would go ahead on Monday. The court of appeal described this as a moment so late that the complainant "was unnecessarily hindered in her ability to preserve her claimed rights". The court of appeal observed, in addition, that the notary could also have pointed the complainant to the possibility of preventing the transfer through the subdistrict court — as supervisor of the administrator. Both notaries received a warning.
Significance for practice: inform heirs well before transfer
This decision sharpens the notary's duty of care in transfers by an executor-administrator. The fact that the executor has independent authority does not relieve the notary of the duty to inform heirs in good time. "In good time" does not mean six days in advance. The court of appeal names no exact number of days, but the message is clear: an heir must be given a real opportunity to take legal measures, and that requires more than a long weekend.
It is notable that the court of appeal expressly points to the appointment of a successor executor as an indicator of underlying disputes. Notaries who oversee a transfer in such a situation must be extra alert to this. And where the transfer date is brought forward, that is all the more reason to approach the heirs proactively and at an early stage.
For heirs who disagree with decisions of an executor-administrator: the route runs through the subdistrict court as supervisor, not through the notary. But the notary must put you in a position, in good time, to take that route.commercial litigation practice.
Frequently asked questions
Did an heir have to give consent for the sale by the executor-administrator?
No. Under Section 4:171 DCC, an executor-administrator has independent authority to manage and dispose of estate assets. The fact that the heirs are registered as owners in the Land Registry (Kadaster) does not change this. The executor needs no power of attorney or consent from the heirs.
How far in advance must a notary inform an heir about a transfer?
The court of appeal names no fixed period, but holds that six days is too short. The heir must be given sufficient time to obtain legal advice and, if necessary, to take legal measures, such as levying an attachment or engaging the subdistrict court as supervisor.
What can an heir do who disagrees with the sale by the executor?
The heir can turn to the subdistrict court, which supervises the executor-administrator. In addition, the heir can levy an attachment to block the transfer. Both routes require legal assistance and time — precisely the reason why the court of appeal held that the notaries should have informed the heir earlier.
ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:544, Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 24 February 2026.
Cited case law
Courts of Appeal: ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:544