Divorce with surprising effects for which pensions could a updates BGH judgment for many partners who have brought asset in a marriage, be expensive even if a separation was agreed. In the case of a divorce, it was hitherto common that acquired claims on pensions in the context of the supply balance in the marriage were divided between the spouses. The new ruling concluded however, that no matter the origin of the money for the pension protection and the separation therefore does not apply. In the case of negotiated the wife wanted to divide 150,000 euro which had brought them into marriage and meanwhile paid into a pension insurance, divorce does not have the compensatory. The rationale was that the agreed separation, the exclusion of the equalisation, also applies to this asset.
The BGH judge ruled however, unlike that with the deposit of the character of the assets have changed in a pension insurance namely by belonging to the assets according to the matrimonial property regime to pensions, the pension rights adjustment applies and on the both spouses have a claim. This ruling could have consequences for some divorce, because it suggests that any kind of assets is subject to the pension rights adjustment if it was invested at the time of the marriage in a retirement regardless of where it comes from. For example, when the occupational pensions: here it is sometimes common that an employee earns royalties and a real retirement protection makes them later about a one time conversion. Even if it were years or jahrzentealte claims, which here are converted, the spouse in divorce has a right to the pension rights adjustment for this asset. That makes the decision for the right form of investment for premarital assets severe, because a mistake can be costly even if agreed separation in the marriage contract. It is when one is all the more important Divorce, to contact, but even in the formulation of a marriage contract on a lawyer who is familiar with the latest rules and laws. With a choice of the type of investment, the woman in the case, which led to the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice, could have kept their premarital assets entirely. Julia Petran technical advocate for family law