Since the introduction of FamFG we are inundated with right of appeal, because every decision has to be accompanied by § 39 FamFG with such. You should not rely on those teachings, however.
The OLG Koblenz, in its decision 13 UF 159/10 v. 3.26.2010 = FamRZ 2011, 232 made clear. was in the right of appeal in a family dispute in accordance with § § 111 et seq FamFG stated that the Board be justified "should" - and not, as it would have been right to be justified "must" § 117 I, II, § 112 No. 1 FamFG . Then the lawyer had left the complainant and the complaint is not within the period prescribed by § 117 I p. 3 FamFG founded. The Court of Appeals rejected a
reinstatement. By a lawyer could appeal the knowledge of the system are expected and therefore that, despite the false right of appeal do right. Although see § 17 FamFG before the restoration in the event of involuntary missing the deadline to be occurring with that the defaulter is not at fault if the Right of appeal is defective. After § 113 FamFG is not § 17 FamFG family disputes and family disputes applicable. Instead, the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure, and these go from the basic knowledge of the lawyer in the appeals system.
pulls the remainder of the Court of Appeals, the application of § 17 FamFG general in cases of doubt, where the defaulter is represented by counsel. Re-establishment was indeed wrong in the right of appeal to provide general information. This is true but not if the defaulter is not a support of a right of appeal needed, and that was always the case when he was represented by counsel - a little concern.
general, it is therefore no longer rely on the right of appeal by the court. Even the lawyer!
Focus family law quick info on the ruling (click to enlarge):
this post download as a pdf .
0 comments:
Post a Comment