The plaintiff is the son of the course of this dispute late former defendant, his sole heir, the defendant is present, which started the process. The defendant acquired earlier in 2001, a passenger car manufactured by Nissan, said he financed the purchase price of a loan. This vehicle he left due to a usage agreement to the applicant to pay the running costs had. The plaintiff had the Vehicle as agreed to in his name. After repaying the loan over-funded
sent the bank the vehicle title to the former defendant.
The applicant with the claim that the defendant had stated earlier for three months after the purchase, to give it to the plaintiff, seeks the release of the vehicle record. The father, as a former defendant has the gift, acc. § 516 et seq, in dispute. The AG Emden dismissed the suit because the procedural requirements for a donation of non-compliance and the defect is not, acc. § 518 II BGB were healed. The appeal of the defendants has been rejected by LG Aurich. With a Court of Appeal approved revision pursued by the applicant on his request.
The appellate court stated that common ground is the vehicle to the financing bank was of security. This had waived his rights under the collateral assignment until after completion of installment of the vehicle and sending letter to the former defendant. At the time of the disputed statement was the former defendant has not been the owner of the vehicle and have not had this can transfer to the plaintiff. The former defendant not be contingent right to transfer, since its transfer to an in rem of transfer is necessary for example, in the takeover of the mortgage costs by the plaintiff or the determination of the plaintiff as receiver of the publication have the vehicle record may be. Such is not done here. The alleged in the statement of the former defendant lying formless donation pledge was void for violation of § 518 I BGB, since it is void in Formwidrigkeit, acc. § 125 BGB. The lack of form was not cured by enforcement of the donation, as provided § 518 II BGB. Such was the case of a lying only in the future acquire full ownership of the recipient to accept only if the donor already have done all what is necessary for the subsequent full acquisition of rights, it had but it was missing.
The applicant submits that the appeals court had failed to consider whether the defendant prior to the applicant the right of entitlement have left as gift. This may have happened by the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant earlier had also been agreed that the plaintiff had the vehicle not for the former defendants, but for the financing bank should have. The acquisition of the mortgage costs by the plaintiff did not preclude a gift because the transfer of ownership in this case would not be free of charge, and the transfer of the claim regarding the vehicle because it had Briefs § 952 BGB is not needed. On the relationship between the ownership of the vehicle and the vehicle registration, there are no specific requirements. Therefore § 952 BGB is for these reasons analogy. This means that the law of the letter motor vehicle follows the laws of the vehicle. It is therefore crucial according to a claim for. § 985 BGB, the collateral legal status of the vehicle.
It would have to exist for the claim of § 985 BGB Vindikationslage required. The defendant is undisputed owner of the vehicle registration. The claimant, who is in possession of the vehicle, the claimed right for the vehicle record only when he became owner of the vehicle, acc. § 952 para 2 BGB analog. Whether this is the case, determined in relation to property law principles in accordance. § 929 S. 2 BGB.
Originally, the financing bank at the time of donation declaration of former defendant nor subject the owner of the vehicle. Former defendant was merely an entitlement. This could be the former defendant, however, by mere agreement under § 929 S. 2 BGB on the plaintiff and thus even after the vehicle was already in sole possession of the plaintiff has been transferred. The agreement had
belong here only to the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to the plaintiff, and required as a result of property law Type coercion and any other moments, as adopted by the Court of Appeals erroneously. In a failed agreement on the transfer of ownership within the meaning of § 929 S. 1 BGB is by an interpretation of the declarations of intent under § § 133, 157 BGB However, the agreement on the essentially same minus the property, the right of entitlement. In the event of a settlement under § 929 S. 2 BGB the donation was also performed (as a "gift hand") in the sense of § 516 para 1.
The Court of Appeal had not been determined whether the defendant, as alleged by the claimant, about three months declared after the acquisition of the vehicle to give it to the plaintiff. It is this evidence of witnesses asked to investigate claims have now. The case is therefore acc. § 563 I ZPO remanded to the trial court. If the plaintiff in this case the right of entitlement received from the defendant, it is the plaintiff, erstrarkt by paying the last installment debt to the full law. The plaintiff would thus become the owner of the vehicle. Because, acc. § 952 BGB Similarly, the right to the letter motor vehicle law follows the vehicle, the applicant should also obtain the ownership of the vehicle registration. A right to property, acc. § 986 BGB, the present defendant is not present. The plaintiff would then be entitled to restitution from a § 985 BGB.
The court concludes that from the Declaration, to "give" something that can not be closed without further fact that the parties only to legal liability side of the business had in mind, for the knowledge of the abstraction principle can in not legally qualified parties to be inferred in every case.
Conclusion: The decision of the Supreme Court was processed in a partial section of an examination exam from 19.05.2010 in NRW. However, the claims of the plaintiff, the Exam Exam, directed against the bank. Otherwise were the same legal issues, such as the analogy of § 952 BGB and the transfer of the entitlement by law to treat the completed gift.
Supreme Court Judgement of 19.06.2007 - X ZR 5 / 07
0 comments:
Post a Comment