Federal Court

To compensate for this liability the payer receives a recourse, and through the legal assignment, which is regulated in 1607 par. 2 S. 2 BGB. The maintenance claim of against his primarily liable parent child passes to the liable relatives, who then the claim may prevail on the parent. 1 BGB is the right tracking difficulties of 1607, par. 2 S. for example, that is the primary Unterhaltsverpflichtete unknown stay (p/brother Muller, BGB, 72nd Edition 2013, 1607, para. 12).

Right tracking difficulties exist but even then, if the performance of the primary debtor based on the basis of fictitious income, because the child has a maintenance title, no satisfaction can find but in the context of enforcement, if the income is not enough. The bar maintenance claim of the children would be so even then still not met. As in the case of section 1607, paragraph 2 S. 1 BGB the priority Unterhaltsverpflichtete actually owes the bar maintenance, but the prosecution and enforcement of the claim is not possible, entitlement money com. passes section 1607 para 2 BGB on the actually performing law p. 1.

Would have to be discussed so my opinion whether the grandfather in part of the replacement liability according to 1607 par. 2 S. 1 BGB can be used to pay maintenance to his grandchildren. This would have can be referenced p. 2 BGB the recourse of section 1607, paragraph 2. After the decision of the Senate, the risk of the enforceability of maintenance of children against the child’s mother on the minor children will be relocated. According to the jurisprudence of the Federal Court (judgment of July 30, 2008, FamRZ 2008, 2104 = XII ZR 126/06) and some courts of appeal (only see OLG Cologne, decision by the 14.03.2011, II-14 WF 20/11, quoted by juris) but an adult child must submit anything to fictitious income of the parent and also not fictitious revenue a parent point to itself. To secure conclusion In regard to the purpose of the provision of the civil code 1607, child support (p/brother Muller, BGB, 72nd Edition 2013 1607, para. 2), the result of the Senate is questionable, particularly in the proceedings on the grant of legal aid, since contested Legal issues in the main proceedings are to be clarified.