Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
22 02 100 • KG LU 22 02 100 AI generated

Joint Divorce Petition Non-Confirmation Cost Allocation

Case Number 22 02 100
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Lucerne (CH-LU)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Court Costs Shared between parties
Open official source Entscheidsuche mirror Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

In a joint divorce petition where one spouse subsequently failed to confirm their intent to divorce after the statutory reflection period, the court ruled that this non-confirmation, being an exercise of a right under divorce law, should not result in the defaulting spouse bearing the entire procedural costs; accordingly, the court overturned the lower court's decision that assigned all costs to the non-confirming spouse, reasoning that in such non-adversarial proceedings based on mutual petition, costs should generally be split equally between both parties, and party costs should be offset, unless other specific circumstances warrant a different allocation under procedural law.

Legislator headnote

Official

§§ 119 Abs. 1 und 120 Abs. 1 ZPO. Einem Ehegatten, der nach Ablauf der zweimonatigen Bedenkzeit gemäss Art. 111 Abs. 2 ZGB seinen Scheidungswillen nicht bestätigt, dürfen allein deswegen keine (Kosten-)Nachteile erwachsen. Diesfalls sind die Verfahrenskosten den Ehegatten grundsätzlich hälftig zu überbinden. | Zivilprozessrecht

Keywords

AI generated
grounds for divorce procedural nullity spouse procedural costs default of party statutory basis

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 111 Abs. 2 ZGB
Einem Ehegatten, der nach Ablauf der zweimonatigen Bedenkzeit gemäss Art. 111 Abs. 2 ZGB seinen Scheidungswillen nicht bestätigt, dürfen allein deswegen keine (Kosten-)Nachteile erwachsen.
Art. 111 ZGB
Einem Ehegatten, der nach Ablauf der zweimonatigen Bedenkzeit gemäss Art. 111 Abs.
Art. 112 ZGB
Art. 115 ZGB
Art. 111 oder
Einem Ehegatten, der nach Ablauf der zweimonatigen Bedenkzeit gemäss Art. 111 Abs.
§§ 119 Abs. 1 und 120 Abs. 1 ZPO
Cited in the operative part to determine that the applicant was not liable for all costs due to the non-confirmation of the divorce will.
§ 266 lit. b ZPO
Cited as the basis for finding that the previous cost allocation suffered from a ground for nullity.
§ 121 ZPO
Cited as a potential basis for a unilateral cost allocation, which the court found inapplicable in this case.
AI generated
22 00 27
Divorce Cost Allocation Overturned Based on Reconciliation Protocol Interpretation
22 00 12
Divorce Costs Allocation and Provisional Legal Aid
3C 18 16
Security for Costs in Divorce Judgment Amendment Proceedings
22 01 104
Marital Protection Proceedings: Cost Allocation Based on Family Law Principles Over Partial Success
22 01 115
Divorce Hearing Counsel Exclusion in Joint Petition

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§§ 119 Abs. 1 und 120 Abs. 1 ZPO

Cited in the operative part to determine that the applicant was not liable for all costs due to the non-confirmation of the divorce will.

§ 266 lit. b ZPO

Cited as the basis for finding that the previous cost allocation suffered from a ground for nullity.

§ 121 ZPO

Cited as a potential basis for a unilateral cost allocation, which the court found inapplicable in this case.

§ 64 ZPO

Cited in the operative part regarding the granting of legal aid (unentgeltliche Rechtspflege) when distributing the court costs.

§ 119 Abs. 1 ZPO

Cited in the reasoning context of the decision regarding the general rule for imposing costs on the losing party.

§ 120 Abs. 1 ZPO

Cited in the reasoning context of the decision regarding imposing costs for unnecessarily caused expenses.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · II. Kammer

Rechtsgebiet: · Zivilprozessrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 08.01.2003

Fallnummer: · 22 02 100

LGVE: · 2003 I Nr. 38

Leitsatz: · §§ 119 Abs. 1 und 120 Abs. 1 ZPO. Einem Ehegatten, der nach Ablauf der zweimonatigen Bedenkzeit gemäss Art. 111 Abs. 2 ZGB seinen Scheidungswillen nicht bestätigt, dürfen allein deswegen keine (Kosten-)Nachteile erwachsen. Diesfalls sind die Verfahrenskosten den Ehegatten grundsätzlich hälftig zu überbinden.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.