Bailiff what should I do? na natalie
A small What if a question, concerning the court enforcement officer at Following Zenario.
A person is over 25 living with a parent, and has AG 1 and increases with AG2. The said person has a sublease contract with their parents, since this person lives there, but takes care of himself. Thus forming their own household. Including over 25.
Now comes the court-enforcer, with the following situation:
The parents have self-powered TV as well as laptop and mobile phones.
The person who lives there to sublease (confirmed in writing)
also owns TV like computer.
In theory, this would be the following scenario:
Since the person forms their own household and is a tenant, but the parents are lessors, ie a separate household, the lodger is right:
TV device
as well as your own pc.
So this would not be Pfänbar, or at most interchangeable with older devices?
Am I right with this assumption? Would this be practical?
In addition, the person owns a rented game console, so evidence. This would be impoundable, am I right?
This is a theoretic what if question, please no teachings and sundresses. Please only factually helpful answers.
Everything is unavailable.
But the practice will then show if it really is.
The person who lives there to sublease (confirmed in writing)
Such "tactical" variants are not unknown. It will not prevent everything.
You do not want to hear it but pay your bills and the bailiff does not come into the house.
Otherwise: let it come to you.
This is not a trick or tactical Varante. This is in this theoretical question already before possibly ereining GV so determined. The genante person is 25 Thus, the parents are no longer obliged to pay for this person. Neither financially nor otherwise and white. This is the law of the legislator.
And if the parents do not grant rent-free accommodation to a full-year-old child, or if they want to have them lounge around in their private rooms, that's just the way it is.
Neither financially nor in any other way. This is the law of the legislator.
That is so - overall - wrong.
… And the legislature goes even further.
No, no. Up to the age of 18 if the child completes an apprenticeship, or up to a maximum of 25 years. Besides studying the child.
When the child completes an education,
now it is true. But that can go well beyond the age of 25 years.
Yes, when the child is studying. But in this theoretical case, the child has already completed training A and B is 25.
That's why the question of what the whole thing would look like for the theoretical case that the GA should come.
But in this theoretical case,
If you (initially) make such a secret from it, you have to rechenn with appropriate answers.
Okey, what would your answer be now, after this new info.
Last but not least decide that the bailiff, on site. I do not know the living conditions. Nor, whether, e.g. A TV usage with the parents the basic right to information (procurement) is sufficiently evaluated.
In addition to a PC / laptop, a TV will certainly not be necessary.
The need for news / TV broadcasts could also be satisfied by I-Net.
It's best to start from the back here. If things have been seized that are not owned by the debtor, the owner can get them out by way of a third-party action suit. For this, however, the property must be proven. A bailiff will not seize any objects that are evidently the property of a third party. However, the court bailiff will seize in case of doubt. In practice, however, it is often the case that in our throwaway society a garnishment on most things is not worthwhile anyway.
The person who lives there to sublease (confirmed in writing)
Crucial here is the "custody", i. That the debtor can actually access the items.
The simplest and most sensible solution here are locked rooms with name tags, to which the schoolboy has no key. But you should pay attention here, that in the room no property of the debtor is, so that this good conscience can give an EV about it.
