Thesis (doctoral)--Friedrich-Alexander-Universität zu Erlangen.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Breslau.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Heidelberg.

Where parties are married in community of property, debts are incurred by the parties and not by the joint estate. Each spouse is liable for debt incurred by either spouse. A creditor is, therefore, entitled to claim from joint estate of both spouses (as co debtors). Such an estate includes not only the spouse's undivided interest in the joint estate but also any and all separate property that falls outside the joint estate. Once the joint estate is sequestrated, both spouses become "insolvent debtors" and consequently the property (including separate property) of both spouses is available to creditors. The lnsolvency Act, as opposed to the Matrimonial Property Act, makes no provision for the recognition or sequestration of 'separate property". Although an estate is sequestrated, it is the debtor who is insolvent. A debtor (married in community of property) who possesses "separate property" is on sequestration of the joint estate insolvent in relation to both his or her undivided interest in the joint estate as well as any "separate property". But is this correct? Ample provision is made by various statutes for the exclusion of certain property from an insolvent estate. Does this not mean that a debtor might be insolvent in relation to one estate and not insolvent in relation to the other? The estate of a partnership is, for purposes of sequestration, deemed to be a separate entity from the partners' private estates. Where the partnership fails, creditors first have recourse against the estate of the partnership where after any shortfall may be claimed from the private estates of the partners. Although the estates of partners are sequestrated simultaneously with the estate of the partnership, creditors of the partnership may not proof their claims against the estate of a partner and vice versa. Is it just and equitable that a spouse who owns separate property is treated differently from a partner who does not possess a separate estate in law from the partnership estate? A partner only has one estate - a private estate that includes his or her interest in the partnership. It is concluded that despite the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Du Plessis v Pienaar, a sense of dissatisfaction still prevails regarding the status of separate property. It is furthermore suggested that in view of the lack of provisions in the insolvency Act regarding separately owned property, the said Act be amended to provide for the specific exclusion of separate property from an insolvent joint estate. It is more advisable to provide for the exclusion of separate property from the insolvent joint estate than to provide for the simultaneous sequestration thereof. / Thesis (LL.M. (Estate Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2004.

Where parties are married in community of property, debts are incurred by the parties and not by the joint estate. Each spouse is liable for debt incurred by either spouse. A creditor is, therefore, entitled to claim from joint estate of both spouses (as co debtors). Such an estate includes not only the spouse's undivided interest in the joint estate but also any and all separate property that falls outside the joint estate. Once the joint estate is sequestrated, both spouses become "insolvent debtors" and consequently the property (including separate property) of both spouses is available to creditors. The lnsolvency Act, as opposed to the Matrimonial Property Act, makes no provision for the recognition or sequestration of 'separate property". Although an estate is sequestrated, it is the debtor who is insolvent. A debtor (married in community of property) who possesses "separate property" is on sequestration of the joint estate insolvent in relation to both his or her undivided interest in the joint estate as well as any "separate property". But is this correct? Ample provision is made by various statutes for the exclusion of certain property from an insolvent estate. Does this not mean that a debtor might be insolvent in relation to one estate and not insolvent in relation to the other? The estate of a partnership is, for purposes of sequestration, deemed to be a separate entity from the partners' private estates. Where the partnership fails, creditors first have recourse against the estate of the partnership where after any shortfall may be claimed from the private estates of the partners. Although the estates of partners are sequestrated simultaneously with the estate of the partnership, creditors of the partnership may not proof their claims against the estate of a partner and vice versa. Is it just and equitable that a spouse who owns separate property is treated differently from a partner who does not possess a separate estate in law from the partnership estate? A partner only has one estate - a private estate that includes his or her interest in the partnership. It is concluded that despite the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Du Plessis v Pienaar, a sense of dissatisfaction still prevails regarding the status of separate property. It is furthermore suggested that in view of the lack of provisions in the insolvency Act regarding separately owned property, the said Act be amended to provide for the specific exclusion of separate property from an insolvent joint estate. It is more advisable to provide for the exclusion of separate property from the insolvent joint estate than to provide for the simultaneous sequestration thereof. / Thesis (LL.M. (Estate Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2004.

Submitted by Ana Valéria de Jesus Moura (anavaleria_131@hotmail.com) on 2014-08-26T14:07:58Z No. of bitstreams: 1 ERICA VERÍCIA DE OLIVEIRA CANUTO.pdf: 680084 bytes, checksum: 89f76f5fb21fd30d3d679b528802c8f9 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Ana Valéria de Jesus Moura (anavaleria_131@hotmail.com) on 2014-08-26T14:08:27Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 ERICA VERÍCIA DE OLIVEIRA CANUTO.pdf: 680084 bytes, checksum: 89f76f5fb21fd30d3d679b528802c8f9 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2014-08-26T14:08:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ERICA VERÍCIA DE OLIVEIRA CANUTO.pdf: 680084 bytes, checksum: 89f76f5fb21fd30d3d679b528802c8f9 (MD5) / O regime patrimonial de bens no casamento e na união estável é o conjunto de regras que regem as relações patrimoniais entre os cônjuges ou companheiros.Com a entrada em vigor do novo Código Civil (lei nº 10.406, de 10 de janeiro de 2002), em 11 de janeiro de 2003, houve a mudança de diversos dispositivos atinentes à matéria. Suprimiu-se o regime dotal, acrescentou-se o regime de participação final nos aqüestos, além do que, se previu a possibilidade de alteração do regime de bens no curso do casamento. A mais importante das alterações referentes ao regime de bens, certamente foi a autorização para que os cônjuges pudessem mudar o regime de bens ainda quando em curso o casamento. Trouxe, como isso, um novo paradigma, revogando o princípio da imutabilidade dos pactos antenupciais. A presente pesquisa tem por objetivo analisar a nova regra a mutabilidade do regime de bens, seus requisitos, forma, efeitos, procedimento, bem como a realidade de outros países. O pedido deve ser submetido ao controle judicial, através de petição conjunta dos cônjuges, no qual farão exposição dos motivos que fundamentam o pedido, devendo comprovar a procedência das razões que invocam. Também há, no texto legal, a ressalva de direitos de terceiros, porventura prejudicados com a alteração do regime de bens, sendo ineficaz em relação a este. Os efeitos da modificação do regime de bens, semelhante ao pacto antenupcial, se condicionam ao registro junto ao Cartório de Registro Imobiliário no domicílio dos cônjuges. O procedimento é de jurisdição voluntária, não cabendo intervenção de quem quer que seja, além dos próprios cônjuges. E o juiz poderá designar audiência de ratificação do pedido ou mesmo de justificação, para comprovação da procedência das razões alegadas pelas partes. A análise da realidade de outros países, também objeto da pesquisa, se constitui um instrumento importante para conduzir o intérprete na aplicação do novo instrumento de garantia da liberdade contratual no âmbito do casamento. Por fim, faz-se uma avaliação positiva em relação à inserção da nova regra no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro.

Marriage is a topic that more or less concerns all of us. Community property is a financial aspect of marriage which is inseparably tied to it. Despite it being a fundamental problem, it is not well known to the general public. For this reason the aim of this diploma thesis is to clearly and systematically summarize the issue of contractual marital property law. For better understanding, the thesis defines basic terms of statutory matrimonial property regime, and focuses on parts of community property of spouses. Attention is focused on the issue of usual family equipment, because it was removed from the matrimonial property law due to recodification, which then instituted a new matrimonial regime: The Separate Property Regime. Except for the statutory matrimonial property regime, spouses are allowed to negotiate different property regime by using a contract of modification of community property of spouses. The contractual matrimonial property regime represents a major part of this thesis. First, the thesis deals with contractual matrimonial property regime, and then it mainly focuses on types of matrimonial property contracts, its contents and its limitations. It pays significant attention to registration of matrimonial property contracts, especially to the new publicly accessible list of...