Maintenance (alimony) refers to funds provided for the support of a particular person (a child, a parent, a spouse) which, under the law of most countries, may be paid either voluntarily or under compulsion pursuant to a court decision. Most litigation in this field concerns the recovery of child support, since many parents — especially those who have started a new family — refuse to pay it, citing insufficient means of subsistence. As a rule, however, the law provides a way to demand reliable information about the income of the person obligated to pay maintenance.
Elizaveta (name changed), a Ukrainian citizen whose relationship with Germany was, unfortunately, far from straightforward, became a client of our law firm. More than eight years ago, Elizaveta met Mikhail (name changed) in Ukraine. Mikhail was a wealthy man who immediately set out to win our client's attention, sparing no expense on gifts and courting her lavishly. Their initial attraction grew into something deeper, and Elizaveta and Mikhail decided to live together. Elizaveta knew little about her partner's professional life, since Mikhail was very reluctant to discuss it, but he earned enough for Elizaveta to simply take care of the household.
Elizaveta and Mikhail never formally married, although a daughter, Maria (name changed), was born to them some time later. Even so, family life was fairly harmonious, and whenever Mikhail's work required him to relocate abroad for an extended period, both Elizaveta and Maria would always go with him. After roughly five years of living together, however, Mikhail began traveling on business trips alone more and more often, sometimes staying away from home for four or even six months at a time. Our client began to suspect that these long absences might not be entirely down to work. All of this led to constant arguments between the couple, and Elizaveta and Mikhail eventually decided to separate. Mikhail did not refuse to help support his daughter, however, and voluntarily sent Elizaveta a certain sum of money for the child's upkeep.
A few months after the separation, Mikhail told our client that he was moving to Germany as a late resettler (Spätaussiedler) and left her his contact details so she could stay in touch with him for their daughter's sake. At first, after the move, Mikhail called Maria regularly, took an interest in her life, and sent her gifts for holidays — but within a year their contact grew much rarer, and eventually Mikhail stopped not only calling but also paying child support. This upset Elizaveta greatly, since her daughter kept waiting for word from her father, while our client's own financial situation left much to be desired.
The final factor that pushed Elizaveta to approach Mikhail directly was the crisis that struck Ukraine amid political upheaval and military conflict, which forced our client to think seriously about her daughter's future. For this reason, Elizaveta asked Mikhail, who by then held German citizenship, to formally acknowledge paternity so that Maria could also be recognized as a German citizen. Mikhail did not respond to our client's request for a long time, and eventually told her he was only willing to acknowledge paternity in Germany on condition that Elizaveta give up her claim to child support entirely.
Our client, deciding that having paternity acknowledged mattered far more for her daughter's future at that point, agreed to Mikhail's terms. Elizaveta and Maria accordingly traveled to Germany to meet Mikhail, and the relevant documents were signed during that meeting. Mikhail insisted that Elizaveta's waiver of child support be notarized. After that, Mikhail had no further contact with either our client or his daughter.
Mikhail's evident desire to have nothing more to do with his own daughter angered Elizaveta greatly, so she decided to consult an experienced lawyer who handled, among other things, child-support recovery matters, to find out what steps could be taken in such a situation.
Having heard Elizaveta's story, our lawyer first explained that, under § 1614 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB), a waiver of future maintenance is void. The declaration Elizaveta had signed and had notarized was therefore invalid. Our client accordingly had the right to claim child support in the amount set under the so-called Düsseldorf Table (Düsseldorfer Tabelle). To determine the exact amount, the lawyer suggested that the client first demand information about Mikhail's income.
Important: Calculating Support
Under § 1614 BGB, a waiver of future maintenance is void — even if it has been notarized.
Pleased that she could now officially obtain child support, Elizaveta provided Mikhail's address, and a formal request for information was sent to him. In the request, the lawyer noted that, under § 1605(1) of the German Civil Code, relatives in the direct line are obliged, upon request, to disclose information about their income and assets to the extent necessary to bring a maintenance claim. On this basis, Mikhail was given two weeks to send the required information to our lawyer, who was acting in Elizaveta's name and interest.
However, toward the end of the deadline, our law firm received a letter from Mikhail's representative stating that Mikhail was not obliged to disclose information about his income and assets, since the period specified under § 1605(2) of the German Civil Code had not yet elapsed.
After reviewing the letter, our lawyer contacted Elizaveta and explained that, under the provision cited, income information could only be requested again once two years had passed since the last such information was obtained, and only if there were grounds to believe the maintenance debtor's income might have risen significantly in the meantime. Our client, however, had told us at our very first meeting that she had never inquired into Mikhail's income at all. The lawyer therefore double-checked whether Elizaveta had ever sent Mikhail any such request. Our client confirmed that she had never sent Maria's father any request of that kind, and so did not understand what deadline could possibly apply.
After speaking with the client, our lawyer sent Mikhail's representative a letter emphasizing that Elizaveta had never previously requested or received information about the income of her child's father, making her request lawful. Some time later, however, Mikhail's lawyer informed us that this information had already been provided about a year earlier to the youth welfare office (German: Jugendamt) during the paternity-acknowledgment proceedings, and that the office had also shared it with Elizaveta at the time. Her request for income information was therefore, he argued, unfounded.
Our lawyer, in turn, pointed out that the youth welfare office had never actually sent Elizaveta those documents, and that our client, in any case, was entitled to demand this information from Mikhail directly. Mikhail, however, continued to insist that Elizaveta's demands were unlawful and refused to provide the information needed to calculate the amount of support.
As negotiations between the parties reached a deadlock, our lawyer suggested that Elizaveta seek the information through the courts, believing our client's demand to be entirely well-founded. Trusting the lawyer's experience and expertise, Elizaveta agreed to have a lawsuit filed.
Having carefully substantiated our client's legal position, the lawyer filed a lawsuit asking the court to order Mikhail to provide current information about his income and assets. Mikhail's lawyer, for his part, filed an objection relying on the information previously provided to the youth welfare office, and also argued that Elizaveta had already known about Mikhail's income at the time she signed her waiver of future maintenance.
Our lawyer further pointed out that neither the youth welfare office nor Mikhail had ever actually given Elizaveta that information, so the claim should be granted. The court, however, without seeking further clarification from the parties, concluded that our client — who had separated from Mikhail only shortly before signing the (now-invalid) waiver of maintenance — must have known about his income. On this basis, the court dismissed our client's claim.
Our lawyer told Elizaveta that the ruling could be appealed, since the court had failed to help establish all the circumstances of the case and had not given the claimant an opportunity to clarify details material to its decision, resulting in an insufficiently reasoned ruling. This amounted to a breach of § 139 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO), which provides that the court must ensure the parties present their statements on all material facts fully and in good time, including by supplementing incomplete factual submissions, offering evidence, and making the relevant motions. A court may base its decision on facts one party has evidently overlooked or considered immaterial only if it has given that party an opportunity to comment on them. Our client had never been given that opportunity. This argument convinced Elizaveta to see the matter through, and she readily agreed to have the lawyer file an appeal.
In the appeal, our lawyer set out the breaches of procedural law committed by the court of first instance and asked that the ruling be set aside and that Mikhail be ordered to give Elizaveta current information about his income. The lawyer also stressed that Mikhail was deliberately trying to conceal his income to avoid paying support, citing a low salary while, according to our client, actually owning property in Italy and a yacht — both hallmarks of a luxury lifestyle.
Mikhail's lawyer filed an objection arguing that, under current case law, the ruling of the court of first instance could not be appealed, because the value of the appeal fell below the statutory threshold — that is, the defendant's total cost of providing the income information came to less than 600 euros, since all Mikhail needed to do to give Elizaveta the information was make a few photocopies. The opposing lawyer also claimed that the yacht had merely been chartered by Mikhail, and that the property had been sold immediately after his move to Germany.
The appellate court, having carefully examined the case file and the arguments put forward by both sides, ruled that the appeal was admissible, since the value of an appeal is measured not by the costs the opposing party would incur, but by the costs borne by the party bringing the appeal. In this case, the value of the appeal was set at 1,500 euros. Moreover, the first-instance ruling was found to be unfounded and was set aside. The appellate court concluded that signing away a claim to child support had nothing to do with whether our client had, at the time, received comprehensive information about the child's father's income. The appellate court's ruling accordingly obliged Mikhail to provide Elizaveta with information about his income and assets.
Once he had obtained the necessary information about Mikhail's income, our lawyer was able to draw up a well-substantiated demand for the appropriate amount of child support. This time, Maria's father did not contest the demand from our lawyer, and voluntarily agreed to transfer the required sum to our client's account each month.
This example from our firm's practice shows how important it is to secure the support of an experienced lawyer in good time — someone who can point you toward the right path to your goal and protect your interests both before and during litigation.
All rights reserved. Copying or republishing this article requires a link to the original source.
