New judgment on maintenance: "first women" go first
What is the verdict? In 2008, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had developed a new method for calculating post-marital maintenance. The result was that many first women got less money than before, especially when the second wife herself did not earn or did not earn much. All income was added together and then divided by three. This regulation has now been overturned by the Federal Constitutional Court (AZ: I BvR 918/10). The highest judges stated: According to the current law, this is not allowed, the first women are in any case before. Decisive is the standard of living at the time of the divorce.
Now all get more money from the Ex? No, it mainly affects more dependent people with higher incomes, so if there is enough money to distribute. With low incomes and especially when there are children, nothing or only little will come out.
Who had complained? A woman who was married for 24 years and also had her own income. Her ex had remarried and this woman only received a small pension of 500 euros. The second woman was considered in the design of maintenance.
For whom does the judgment apply? For marriages divorced since July 2008 and all cases currently pending that have a similar situation. However, the higher maintenance is not automatic, you have to apply to the family court. And it would be best to seek advice from a lawyer before, if it is financially worthwhile to go to court. It is also not paid retroactively, but recalculated only for the future. Nevertheless, family lawyers expect a flood of amendments.
What is not changed? The maintenance rights reform, which also came into effect in 2008, states that underage children have absolute priority in terms of maintenance. It does not matter if they came from a marriage or the parents were unmarried. There is no change in the principle that divorced people have to start work earlier or that maintenance can be made easier in terms of time.
What has to happen now? The Constitutional Court has not made any fundamental criticism of the method of partitioning. It merely said that the interpretation of the law by the BGH was too broad. The black Peter goes back to the legislature, he must rectify the Civil Code.
