Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
22 03 139 • KG LU 22 03 139 AI generated

Appeal Regarding Spousal Support Termination and Revocation of Right of Residence

Case Number 22 03 139
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Lucerne (CH-LU)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Entscheidsuche mirror Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court addressed an appeal regarding a separation arrangement where the appellant sought to terminate his spousal support obligation due to retirement and revoke a lifelong, gratuitous real right of residence granted to the respondent in the marital apartment. The court partially granted the appeal by lifting the support obligation, reasoning that spouses are generally not obligated to work past retirement age, which constitutes a significant change in circumstances warranting re-evaluation of support. However, the court denied the request to revoke the right of residence because the agreement granting this lifelong, registered real right was a disposition on property rights, not a measure within the closed list of protective measures available to the separation judge under relevant family law statutes, meaning it could not be unilaterally revoked under the procedural rules governing such measures.

Legislator headnote

Official

Art. 163, 172 Abs. 3 und 179 Abs. 1 ZGB. Es besteht grundsätzlich keine Verpflichtung der Ehegatten, über das Pensionsalter hinaus einer Erwerbstätigkeit nachzugehen. Der Eheschutzrichter ist nicht frei, irgendwelche Massnahmen anzuordnen; insbesondere kann er nicht ein von den Ehegatten aussergerichtlich begründetes dingliches Wohnrecht an der ehelichen Wohnung bei Veränderung der Verhältnisse aufheben. | Familienrecht

Keywords

AI generated
right of residence separation of property termination agreement retirement family obligations departure of spouse

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 179 ZGB
Art. 163 ZGB
Cited in relation to the finding that spouses are generally not obligated to pursue employment beyond retirement age, which affected the maintenance obligation.
Art. 176 Abs. 1 ZGB
Art. 172 Abs. 3 ZGB
Cited in relation to the restriction that the Eheschutzrichter (protective order judge) can only order measures provided for by law.
Art. 169 Abs. 2 aZGB
Art. 172 ZGB
Art. 176 ZGB
Art. 145 aZGB

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BGE 91 II 412
Wife's Attempt to Use Land Register Restriction to Secure Matrimonial Residence Right Under Federal Law
BGE 114 II 18
Spouse Challenging Alternative Obligation for Vehicle Replacement Costs During Separation
AI generated
OG 1994 3
Spousal Application for Separation Conditions Standing
S 94 635
Unemployment Benefit Suspension Overturned Due to Spousal Residence Obligation
22 00 34
Spousal Support Offset of Supplementary Benefits
22 00 13
Spousal Support Modification Due to Cohabitation and Qualified Concubinage Standard
3B 14 52
Spousal Support Cancellation in Long-Term Cohabitation with Intent to Marry

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 179 Abs. 1 ZGB

The appeal concerned the modification of measures decided under Art. 179 ZGB, specifically the request for revocation of the existing orders.

Art. 172 Abs. 3 ZGB

Cited in relation to the restriction that the Eheschutzrichter (protective order judge) can only order measures provided for by law.

Art. 163 ZGB

Cited in relation to the finding that spouses are generally not obligated to pursue employment beyond retirement age, which affected the maintenance obligation.

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: · Familienrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 09.03.2004

Fallnummer: · 22 03 139

LGVE: · 2004 I Nr. 10

Leitsatz: · Art. 163, 172 Abs. 3 und 179 Abs. 1 ZGB. Es besteht grundsätzlich keine Verpflichtung der Ehegatten, über das Pensionsalter hinaus einer Erwerbstätigkeit nachzugehen. Der Eheschutzrichter ist nicht frei, irgendwelche Massnahmen anzuordnen; insbesondere kann er nicht ein von den Ehegatten aussergerichtlich begründetes dingliches Wohnrecht an der ehelichen Wohnung bei Veränderung der Verhältnisse aufheben.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.