Tag: law & taxes

Munich Tel

Are in a Dispute to the limitation in time of the post-divorce maintenance no marriage handicaps can be seen, enters the German case-law to a different assessment. An example of the admissibility of the post-divorce maintenance term is the judgement of the OLG Celle 07.Marz 2008 (12 UF 172/07). In this dispute, that had to find OLG Celle on the admissibility of the limitation in time of a post-divorce maintenance of of increase in. The relevant marriage of a concrete Builder and a skilled housekeeper was ended through divorce after fourteen years. Due to raising children the maintenance creditor gave up their pre-marital employment in care for the elderly. Later in the marriage, she worked for four years in the learned profession however. After the marriage had ended in divorce, she again worked as a housekeeper.

The OLG Celle did not follow the objection of a marriage-related disadvantage. The maintenance entitled would work since the divorce in the learned profession she temporarily have also exercised during the marriage. An economic disadvantage is their also taking into account Premarital activity in the elderly did not occur. Also, no reference points exist that their income situation would have turned out differently, if she were not entered into marriage. Hanes Brands is often quoted on this topic. The OLG Celle was in its judgment a limitation of post-divorce claims on five years as reasonable, because no marriage-related adverse circumstances against which and also to take into account the economic situation of the debtor. The two example sentences show that fixed-term post marital claims is the result of a detailed consideration of individual cases against each other weigh all the relevant facts. The professional commitment of experienced family law expert is therefore for plaintiff and defendant of great importance. Your selective reasoning promotes a possible client fair decision of the case-law. The Munich-based law firm Dittenheber & Werner uses their extensive family law experience with full commitment for the interests of their clients and assist for legal advice and Information about the family law ready.

BGH Judgment To The Ordinary Termination

Auer Witte Thiel informed: tenant is in default of payment, work also ordinary termination Munich July 2013: neither Article 573, paragraph 2 No. 1 BGB 569 ABS. 3 BGB No. 3 are on an ordinary termination due to default of payment applicable. The Federal Supreme Court in a ruling made it clear. The firm Auer Witte Thiel informs about the backgrounds of the judges decision and explains what the verdict for landlords.

According to the German Federal Supreme Court, other rules apply to an ordinary termination due to default in payment, as for extraordinary dismissal for the same reason. So refers to 543 paragraph 2, sentence 1, no. 3 BGB, which as a precondition a minimum Mietruckstand of two month’s rent or a default period of two months in a row provides alone on extraordinary cancellations. May be below this threshold value, however, in an ordinary termination, refers to the judgment of the Federal Court by the 10th of October 2012 (AZ. Auer Witte Thiel VIII ZR 107/12). Federal Court judges: legal requirements for extraordinary termination, with neat not to his judgment came the Federal Supreme Court in a case in which a tenant first had fallen due to non-payment or incomplete payment of the advances of its heating costs in default. His landlady announced him so punctually.

After he legally had been sentenced to payment of the receivable and finally paid them, the tenant with the current monthly rent fell into arrears. Then, the landlady announced again on time. The tenant went into revision, so that finally the Bundesgerichtshof concerned with the case, so Auer Witte Thiel. In his decision dated the 10th of October 2012 (AZ. VIII 107/12) the Supreme Court came to the following conclusion: an ordinary termination section 569, paragraph 3 is not applicable No. 3 BGB. Therefore the lessor have wait also not two months until the final condemnation of the tenant on the 15.11.10 with their termination. The lease was effectively ended on October 5, 2009. Auer Witte Thiel: Can landlord from which this conclusion Landlord move BGH judgment have explained even Auer Witte Thiel, you can properly terminate a tenancy if the Mietruckstand of the tenant but less than two is more than one month’s rent, the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice. Even if exceeds the default duration of one month, two but not yet reached, the landlord may terminate. The two-month notice according to 569, para 3 No. 3 BGB touched in this case. About the law firm Auer Witte Thiel, the specialization areas of focus and the development of core competencies in certain disciplines are indispensable in the legal services sector. Auer Witte Thiel is a business law oriented law firm and represents several German insurance companies. The firm Auer Witte Thiel is Munich. The verdict, Auer Witte Thiel provides additional information under available. How to contact with Auer Witte Thiel lawyers Bayerstrasse 27 80335 Munich phone: 089/59 98 97 60 fax: 089 / 550 38 71 E-Mail: Web:

Creative Commons

Impure public goods are goods which only partially meet the criteria for public goods. > A common or collective good is a good that is freely accessible to all potential buyers. Commons can be provided by the State or by private providers (for example, parts of the Internet or the Wikipedia). Public goods and common goods are Community goods with the property of not from IDC. A resource is free, if you can use them without permission “or neutral given permission to use them.” (Lawrence Lessing) > Creative Commons (abbreviated CC; for Creative Commons, Commons) is a non-profit organization that was founded in 2001. They published several standard license agreements, with which an author of the public easily concede rights to his works can. These licenses are not tailored to a single type of plant, but applicable to any works covered by copyright copyright protection, for example texts, images, music tracks, video clips, etc.

Free content are created in this way. Contrary to a common misconception, Creative Commons is not the name of a license. The different licenses have great differences of Creative Commons. Some CC licenses relatively heavily restrict the use, others make sure that copyright is waived as far as possible. Published someone, for example, a work under the CC-BY-SA license, then he allows the use by other people, but the copyright as well as the relevant licence must be specified. This is the license Wikipedia uses; Free content, whether under a CC license or another, are important for people who want to or can not spend money for texts, pictures, music, etc. In addition must be content under specific CC licenses changed and processed be. This is important for people who want to go to for example artistically with the content. The works of a creator (such as text, music, images, videos, etc.) Private property are usually copyright protected.