1 |
Die Haftung der vermögenden Ehefrau für den vermögenslosen Ehemann /Böhne, Reinhard. January 1937 (has links)
Thesis (doctoral)--Friedrich-Alexander-Universität zu Erlangen.
|
2 |
Der Erwerb mit Mitteln des eingebrachten Gutes /Heinrich, Berthold. January 1933 (has links)
Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Breslau.
|
3 |
Das Anwendungsgebiet des Handelsrechts und die güterrechtliche Stellung der Handelsfrau : zwei Beiträge zu den allgemeinen Lehren des Handelsrechts /Geiler, Karl, January 1900 (has links)
Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Heidelberg.
|
4 |
Die status van afsonderlike goed van 'n gade getroud binne gemeenskap van goed in gevalle van sekwestrasie en aansprake van krediteure van die gemeenskaplike boedel / J.H. v.d.B. LubbeLubbe, Jan Hendrik van den Berg January 2003 (has links)
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.
|
5 |
Die status van afsonderlike goed van 'n gade getroud binne gemeenskap van goed in gevalle van sekwestrasie en aansprake van krediteure van die gemeenskaplike boedel / J.H. v.d.B. LubbeLubbe, Jan Hendrik van den Berg January 2003 (has links)
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.
|
6 |
A mutabilidade do regime de bens no casamentoCanuto, Erica Verícia de Oliveira January 2006 (has links)
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.
|
7 |
Smluvní modifikace zákonného manželského majetkového režimu / Contractual modifications of statutory matrimonial property regimeKalousková, Iveta January 2017 (has links)
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...
|
Page generated in 0.0815 seconds