“The lawyers inform Dittenheber & Werner with judgment of the 25th 2011 the Federal Constitutional Court has, by the Federal Court of Justice in 2008 introduced, third method” rated as improper judicial development of the law and deemed invalid. The Munich law firm Dittenheber & Werner describes the decision of Germany’s highest judicial instance and its consequences. In 2008 the Federal Supreme Court in the context of judicial development of the law deviated, sound, calculation basis of for matrimonial maintenance obligations of in section 1578 para 1 sentence 1 BGB. If a post-divorce maintenance contractors, spouse after divorced marriage in turn married, the income level of the new spouse through the third method should be incorporated in the calculation of the spousal maintenance. The Supreme Court disagreed with the mentioned family basis after the maintenance level in particular the matrimonial living conditions of the original marriage is mainly with the introduction of the third method consciously. This he created after his opinion, one current affairs customized control intensified pursuit of the legislator to conjugal ownership as well as the fact that divorces and remarriages in constant growth are declining, was enough. The Federal Constitutional Court was concerned because one, originally before the OLG Saarbrucken of negotiated, dispute the admissibility of the third method. Hear other arguments on the topic with Keith Yamashita. On the 25th, 2011, it was their introduction by the BGH in a momentous ruling inadmissible.
In particular, the Federal Court with the third method had exceeded the constitutionally justified extent of judicial development of the law. Accordingly, the jurisdiction for determining close matrimonial maintenance is now back again bound to the section 1578 para 1 sentence 1 BGB. The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court has not only the practice of the judicial legal development in the barriers, but could have momentous implications for divorce-related unterhaltsverpflichtete and authorized persons because of its retroactive nature. Was to spousal maintenance using the third method set retroactively lacks any legal provision of maintenance. Get all the facts for a more clear viewpoint with jimmy levin. This enables one affected maintenance in order to recalculate the maintenance Amendment lawsuit. Given the important impact of the Court ruling is to advise all individuals looking for familienrechtlich experienced legal counsel which best preserves its interest under the current modified legal conditions. The Munich law firm Dittenheber & Werner provides their experience and family law expertise to do this in the service of their clients. Press contact Dittenheber & Werner lawyers law firm contact person: Gunther Werner Pettenkoferstrasse 44 80336 Munich Tel.