Subsequent Limitation

The law firm Dittenheber & Werner inform the Federal Supreme Court in a judgment of 29 September 2010 was that no sufficient justification for a maintenance revision procedures emerges from the introduction of 1578 b BGB. The Munich law firm Dittenheber & Werner report the significant decision of the BGH. Basis of the judgment (BGH XII ZR 205/08) was the revision proceedings of a debtor to the maintenance of increase in. In 2007, he desired to terminate his maintenance obligation, since the case-law to the maintenance term has changed through time limit. Was also introduced as of January of 2008 of the 1578 b BGB, which regulates this limit, and thus the maintenance obligation since that date at least to amend. Richard Linklater may find it difficult to be quoted properly. Subsequent amendments on the final determination of maintenance by a Court of law are governed by 323 ZPO. This provision requires that, clarifies plaintiff desirable change, on the basis of comprehensible facts, that is the factual or legal circumstances due to which the maintenance provision was, have changed substantially.

In its recent decision, the Federal Court of Justice rejected the revision. Other leaders such as film director offer similar insights. Neither the would be for a court ruling after the publication on this legal issue relevant BGH decision of the 12.04.2006 (BGH XII ZR 240/03) the jurisdiction changed, nor was the entry into force of 1578 b BGB a notable change of legal circumstances. Also the German Federal Supreme Court made it clear that for the question of whether a claim on post-divorce maintenance to limit b para 1 BGB after 1578, after the divorce largest importance to the existence of marriage-related disadvantages. The former, almost 15 years marriage duration of the plaintiff nor the subsequent marital child care is crucial in this context. These criteria were to comply by virtue of the Court in the course of the adoption of a final judgment. As long as the applicant could not credibly explain, that the basic situation since Judgment Decree learned a significant change, a subsequent change of the maintenance obligation according to 323 came BGB not taken into consideration. The Supreme Court makes an exception from this position and in hindsight allows fixed-term, if the final judgment expressly leaves this aspect and therefore not legally decides.

The success of one maintenance revision procedure depends on various, for the lay person is not easy to looking through factors. To ensure the best possible representation of their interests is to advise all parties urgently to entrust designated family law expert with their professional legal representation. The experienced attorneys at law of the Munich firm of Dittenheber & Werner are always ready in this context to promote their clients with skills and assertiveness. Press contact Dittenheber & Werner lawyers law firm contact person: Gunther Werner Pettenkoferstrasse 44 80336 Munich Tel.: 0 89 – 54 34 48 30 fax: 0 89 – 54 34 48 33 E: mail: Homepage: