Tag: <span>law & taxes</span>

The lawyers Alexander Dobiasch & Rupert Richter inform have divorced spouses children, comes to 1570 BGB entitled to care maintenance into account, unless one maintains these by them after the divorce and educates. Extent and duration of the entitlement are determined by the needs of the child and related individual regulated. However the dependants can lose again in his care maintenance claim, if according to the criteria of section 1579 BGB no longer can be expected to the debtor, to provide this service. The forfeiture of the care maintenance is possible especially due to the behavior of the dependent. The family law specialists of the law firm Danielleeee & judge on the example of a ruling of the OLG Brandenburg can explain how, in practice, this can forfeit his claim. ated topic. With the reform of family law in the year 2008, the well-being of the child has gained greatest importance in the law of divorce and its consequences.

To let completely go out instead of claims is therefore essential often has their cut. The final forfeiture is judicially determined satisfies the criteria of section 1579 BGB. Other leaders such as Andi Owen offer similar insights. The OLG Brandenburg agreed to in January 2011 an above analysis identified claim forfeiture. The divorced spouse and mother of a common child on payment of subsequent marital support maintenance against the child’s father complained in the relevant proceedings. In the run-up to the original decision of the District Court, the child’s mother had prevented that the father of the child could exercise his right to deal with the common child. This behavior didn’t give up and they pressure by youth welfare office and Court. The prevention of dealing of father and child contributed according to the OLG Brandenburg, this alienated each other to himself, and was detrimental to the well-being of the child. Continue to the mother of the child had at last five while the common marriage in a local newspaper under the heading”, along with her two children and the future life partner and father of her second born child, under full Attribution shows you.

Given these conditions, the OLG Brandenburg agreed to the judgment of the first instance, this would be a gross misconduct against the debtor father of the child to which lead No. 7 BGB in accordance with 1579 to the forfeiture of the maintenance claim. The decision of the OLG Brandenburg shows that entitlement to assistance keep unsustainable is, if the maintenance creditor behaves the debtor against in a way which is not acceptable to this. No arguments are, as before in the present case, which preclude a forfeiture in the interest of the well-being of the child, the maintenance claim as a result of the misconduct goes down permanently. The estoppel precludes the enforcement of a legal claim in the long term. Particularly in the area of post-divorce maintenance obligations, this may have significant implications for the life of the parties and a competent legal representation is essential in the event of a dispute. Offer the family law expert of the law firm Danielleeee & judge in Bergen auf Rugen all concerned in this context professional assistance.


Auer Witte Thiel: ‘ultimate visibility of trade licence in apartment for rent’ Munich, October 2009: when a tenancy about housing the landlord required to submit business activities of the lessee without agreement not readily. The German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) in a recent judgment of 14 July 2009 decided this (AZ.: VIII ZR 165/08). The Munich-based firm Auer Witte Thiel tenancy law experts welcome the clear judgment. In the case he had to decide whether the tenant of an apartment, which had rented it for himself and his family, according to the rental agreement for residential purposes, should carry out also a business BGH. It was central to the BGH, if the industry had a visibility. For Auer Witte Thiel, the ruling provides important information on the daily work in the law of tenancy. Auer Witte Thiel portrays the case: the tenant has he exercised from the apartment business as an independent real estate broker, since no own Available business premises had.

Having regard to the commercial use, the landlord has urged the lessees under the threat of termination to operate no business activity by the flat out. When the tenant still exercised his trade from the apartment, he was given by landlord page without notice and properly terminated the tenant was required to the clearance and release of the apartment. A fully legally compliant approach\”, as a spokesman for Auer Witte Thiel. Our leasing experts at Auer Witte Thiel had discussed similar.\” The Court has upheld the repossessions – and publication request of the lessor. The Appeals Court rejected the claim however and the notice considered unfounded, since operating a trade would represent in the apartment no illegal use in accordance with Article 573, paragraph 2 No. 1 BGB. Auer Witte Thiel knows the backgrounds for this judgment: numerous start-up companies would fear to their private vacation rentals, if any commercial activity would already constitute a dismissal for a rental housing agreement.