Tag: law & taxes

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:

Alexander Dobiasch & Rupert Richter lawyers inform the Federal Constitutional Court has expanded the rights of fathers of illegitimate children in July 2010. In her momentous ruling (BVerfG, 1 BvR 420/09) the judges in Karlsruhe overturned the previous legal regulation, according to the fathers of illegitimate children for a joint custody on the consent of the mother depended on, regardless of the welfare of children affected. Against this background, all German courts are obliged to give both parents a common Sorgeecht, if this is in the interest of the well-being of the child. The law firm Danielleeee & judge family law specialists on the example of a judgment of the Berlin Chamber Court of February 07, 2011 illustrate how the guidelines are put into practice by Germany’s highest court. The verdict of the Berlin Chamber Court was referring to the lament of a father who asked for joint custody of his son run October 2007-to the world.

The mother of the child resisted the desire and had so far refused a joint statement of concern to submit that the father parental concern would have participate. This was even before the creation of the new legal situation by the Federal Constitutional Court by the competent family court deemed legal have been. The child’s father coveted participation of parental anxiety, since this best was his view after the well-being of the child. ils and insights. He argued that he could promote the development of his son due to his personal character, his education and his commitment. Still heard the child with his support so far an excellent development.

It is in the interests of the child if it do him in important decisions about his lifestyle as a equal parent. This could achieved only through a sharing of parental anxiety. In its ruling, the Berlin Chamber Court relied on the legal situation created by the Federal Constitutional Court. As long as there would be no revision of the relevant legal provisions, the joint had two parents at the request of a parent Custody related to if this is recommended for the well-being of the child. In the negotiated lawsuit it looked at this as a given. Since the birth of his son, the father of the child have a trust relationship with the child. He was also undoubtedly willing and able to the best care for his son. It would be best if both parents as exemplary orientation person could be experienced, alike to take influence on important decisions the well-being of the child. From article 6 par. II GG resulting parental rights of the father, the Court reviewed higher than the interest of the mother to an interference-free upbringing of the child. The spirit of compromise necessary for the exercise of joint custody is to ask her as well as the father of the child. The Court therefore gave the desires of the father to participate in the parental right. Is arguing before courts to the custody of children, all parties should sure be sure an experienced legal assistance.

Lawyer Alexander Bredereck, Berlin to costs accounting in commercial spaces: What deadlines apply here? For many years, we operate primarily focusing on labour and tenancy law as lawyers. We deepen this experience through regular training and constant technical exchange. So we can already settle possible points of contention when designing your contracts and your terms and conditions in its favour. Has in a recent decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, judgment of 27.1.2010 XII ZR 22/07) decided that in the commercial space leasing the period of 556 paragraph 3 sentence 3 BGB, stating that the landlord with claims costs order is excluded, if billing is not within one year after the end of the accounting period, does not apply. It follows that the lessor in principle also for longer historical periods can be still operating expense and the lessee thereof must equalize resulting additional tax amounts. Arises in the course of this decision the question which now limits for the settlement of costs in the commercial law of tenancy? First of all, it is to terminate the lease.

If there a specific billing period has been agreed, this shall apply. Is not agreed upon deadline, the landlord of the advance payments must settle within a reasonable period of time. The appropriate deadline regularly to the expiry of one year after the end of the billing period. What are the implications of a delayed billing in the commercial law of tenancy? A delayed billing does not cause that the landlord with an additional tax is excluded. The landlord defaults the settlement, the tenant can take to the landlord on a settlement claim (claim for settlement grant). He can also make the ongoing costs prepaid.

Tenant Tip: think about whether you take the landlord grant a settlement claim. This is regularly only makes sense if you expect credits from the operating expenses. Tip owners: If you too long with the operating expenses wait can forfeit claims on payment. If a period is agreed in the lease, you should meet the deadline anyway. Is not agreed upon deadline, you should make at least if you expect an additional within one year after the end of the accounting period the settlement. A post by lawyer for rental and property law Alexander polymath and lawyer Dr. Attila Fodor Berlin-Mitte. Polymath Willkomm lawyers Berlin-Charlottenburg: Kurfurstendamm 216 (corner of pheasant road), 10719 Berlin (Metro station Uhlandstrasse, suburban trains and Metro station Zoologischer Garten) Berlin-Mitte: Palais am Festungsgraben, 10117 Berlin, access via road under den Linden (rail and subway station Friedrichstrasse) Branch Office Berlin-Marzahn: Marzahn promenade 28, 12679 Berlin (Bahn Marzahn) Potsdam: Friedrich-Ebert-Strasse 33, 14469 Potsdam Tel. (030) 4 000 4 999 E-mail: everything to the tenancy: