In a judgment of 29 September 2010, the Federal Supreme Court was that the introduction of BGB § 1578b show no sufficient grounds for a maintenance change procedure. Law firm Dittenheber & Werner report Munich the important judgment of Supreme Court.
Basis of the Court (BGH XII ZR 205 / 08) was the revision proceedings of a party liable for the increase in maintenance. He desired in 2007 to end his maintenance obligation, because the case-law on the maintenance fixed terms have changed through time limit. Also German civil code, which regulates this limit was introduced on January of 2008 of the § 1578b and thus amend the maintenance obligation at least since then.
Subsequent amendments to determine the final maintenance by a court decision are governed by § 323 ZPO. This provision requires that, clarifies plaintiff desirable change by convincing facts, that the actual or legal circumstances due to which the determination of the maintenance was carried out, have changed to a significant extent.
In its recent decision, the Court rejected the revision. Neither the would for a court ruling after the publication in this legal issue relevant Supreme Court decision from the 12.04.2006 (BGH XII ZR 240 / 03) the case-law changed, still was the entry into force of section 1578b BGB a remarkable change of legal circumstances.
Also the Federal Court made it clear that the question of whether a claim for maintenance to ehelichen to limit BGB was according to article 1578b, section 1, after the divorce would most important play in the event of marriage-related disadvantages. Neither the former, nearly 15-year marriage period of the plaintiff nor to eheliche child care is relevant in this context. These criteria are automatically been observed by the Court in the course of the adoption of a final judgment. As long as the plaintiff could not credibly explain that the basic State of affairs have experienced a significant change since judgement decree, came a subsequent change of the maintenance obligation according to § 323 BGB not take into account.
The Supreme Court makes an exception from this position and allows for the limit afterwards, when the final judgment expressly leaves this aspect and therefore not legally decides.
The success of one maintenance change procedure depends diverse, for the uninitiated, not easy to durchschauenden factors. To ensure the best possible representation of their interests, it is strongly advisable all parties involved to appoint designated family lawyers with their professional legal representation. The longtime experienced lawyers of the Munich firm of Dittenheber & Werner available at any time in this context, to argue for their clients with skills and assertiveness.
Press contact
Dittenheber & Werner lawyers
Law firm
Contact: Günther Werner
Schwanthalerstrasse 44
80336 Munich
Tel.: 0 89 – 54 34 48 30
Fax: 0 89 – 54 34 48 33