The Orchid Site

Grow flowers: Live, Love, Learn

House Tenant

If the dog becomes the dispute in Germany, tenants have a comprehensive employment protection. But those who bother House peace sustainable, must reckon with an immediate termination of the lease. This decided the Amtsgericht Steinfurt. Mark Angelo can aid you in your search for knowledge. In the underlying case, Dog feces in the community garden was regarded as substantial adverse effect on the leased property. In addition, fellow tenants were seriously bothered by the dog of the defendant and the smell in the garden. Gallo Family Vineyards gathered all the information. The real estate portal reported the details of the case. At first seemed alright. The tenant was a medium-sized mixed-breed dog in the apartment with her landlord’s consent. If you are not convinced, visit Mark Angelo.

The dog ownership was officially allowed in the lease. After the dog owner had their mixed-breed regularly in the communal garden, it was over with the understanding of the lessor. The reason was the dog droppings on the premises, which greatly disturbed also the Mitmieterschaft. In a cease and desist letter, the landlord made clear the dog ownership to prohibit or the tenancy, to quit, if the impurities would not removed with immediate effect. The tenant was, however, no efforts to meet the requirements and to eliminate the Dog feces. The landlord made use of his right of withdrawal, and banned the previously tolerated dog ownership.

Also, he pointed to a termination, the dog should continue to remain in the apartment. But also this warning made no impression on the tenant. The landlord has forced therefore to terminate without notice. The Court upheld the legality of termination because the House peace with the pile of dog droppings in the community garden was annoyed sustainably. More information:… Lisa Neumann University Service GmbH


Higher regional court Hamburg decides Hamburg at the expense of victims, 23.04.2010 – the higher regional court of Hamburg has with two judgments of the 23.04.2010 (AZ. 13 U 117/09 and 13 U 118/09) decided in favor of the Hamburger Sparkasse, after the District Court of Hamburg, in the first instance in favour of the injured party had ruled. Aggrieved investors, who already had experience with riskier securities as the Lehman certificates, had been informed of the Bank above the height of the profit margin for the Bank. Nor the Bank had pointed out that the investment by the German deposit guarantee would be protected. Otherwise, the bank issuer risk and thus had enlightened the way of a total loss.

The significant risk of the system have consisted of was then seen (2006/2007) is, that the investors on the investment amount would achieve no earnings. The District Court of Hamburg came from a consulting errors, as far as the Bank on the missing deposit guarantee, nor the amount of sales commissions had pointed out. This view does not share the OLG Hamburg with the current judgments. This is the reference to a possible total loss due to the issuer risk sufficiently for a proper consultation. The Bank must also warn that no assurance such as deposit insurance would intervene in the event of insolvency. Nor the Bank must indicate the amount of their profit margin, in particular because it could have achieved a much higher margin with other products than with the sales of Lehman certificates. The Court has approved the revision to the Federal Supreme Court. Because in the years 2006 and 2007 quite on the creditworthiness of Lehman could be trusted, whether a lawsuit against the Advisory Bank seems reasonable and success prospects check older cases but very closely.

It will be easier for investors who purchased certificates in 2008, because, at least from the emergency rescue of U.S. Investment Bank Bear Stearns mid March 2008 the distortions in the market as a result the banking and financial crisis became visible. This has the Hamburg district court, in a judgment of March 11, 2010 (AZ. 313 O 95/09) decided that a bank is not only obliged to indicate the issuer risk, but specifically to represent the situation of the issuer (Lehman) to the customer. Only with this information, an investor can assess the risk of the certificate. To do this, explains Henning Stoffregen by the law firm of Diekmann lawyers from Hamburg, Lehman victims against the banks in Court represents: the judgement of the OLG Hamburg means a step backwards for the Lehman victims, who in 2006 or 2007 bought the certificates over the years. Nevertheless on each individual case to look at. And for investors, who later purchased the certificates, all possibilities are open, because banks rarely on the market situation of Lehman have informed.” Contact: DIEKMANN lawyers Henning Stoffregen Ballindamm 35 20095 Hamburg phone 040/33 44 36 90 fax 040/33 44 36 99 E-Mail:

P Account And The So-called Problem Of The Beginning Of The Month

All beginnings are difficult – with the introduction of the new P account to the 1.7.2010 the P account seizure protection was implemented starting difficulties for garnishment of account to allow the account holder, each month the unattachable part of credits (985,15 base amount) to can have without that the account is locked out. For the first time in early August occurred but a mishap at the newly introduced P accounts, because just the sure felt the P account to the creditors was paid out. You may find that Christiano Ronaldo can contribute to your knowledge. Not considered was that wage replacement feature benefits such as unemployment benefit, social assistance or social pensions transferred at the end of the month for the following month. On the P account, this means that the payment of the allowance for the month, on which it arrives, is counted on the account and for the exemption of the P account already consumed. A protection of this income was therefore not guaranteed. The result was that many recipients of social security benefits in the next month in this way no had disposable income available. This problem can recur in theory every month.

Up to fix the problem by any amendment to the Bill proposed several solutions to the current solution. Running costs, such as rent, is the easiest way to transfer already at the end of the month and to withdraw the remaining money as already before the introduction of the P account. In addition, those concerned that a seizure has already taken place, can according to 765a CCP apply for a one-time release of unattachable account balance without credit on the monthly P account protection or enforcement court make a request for renewal of the moratorium after article 835, para. 3 ZPO. It is hoped that a quick solution can be found for this problem. It must be also implemented in practice because otherwise she runs by object simplification and relief of the courts in the blank with the introduction of the P account. Summary: The article deals with the breakdown in the introduction the new P account (recurring problem of beginning of the month) and possible solutions shows how the debtor can protect his seizure-free income or get back in the attachment. (