Usage management
The utility administration (sometimes also called administrative community ) was the legal property regime of the civil code until 1953 . In legal terms, it is characterized as the former administration and usufruct of the property brought in by the woman. Before the BGB came into force, it was valid for around 16 million citizens, especially in northern Germany.
Usage management was a subtype of the separation of property . Each fiancé kept the fortune that brought into the marriage. Each spouse was entitled to the wealth that he earned. A fortune of the couple for the entire hand , there was not Nutzverwaltung. The property management was shaped by the fact that the wife's assets were divided into two separate assets: the property brought in and the property subject to retention of title. The man acquired the right to administer and use the property. In return, he had to bear the burden of the marital property, insofar as it was brought in, and to cover the marital expenses.
The different assets
The woman's property was divided into the property brought in and the property subject to retention of title. Although both special assets were exclusively assigned to the woman, the man acquired the right to administer and use the property upon marriage. The right of use was designed as a usufruct for the property brought in.
Reserved property were those items from the woman's property that were declared to be reserved property by marriage contract. Above all, the reserved property was what the woman had acquired through her work or the independent operation of a commercial business and the items intended exclusively for the personal use of the woman, such as clothes, jewelry and tools. As a result, the management of use differed considerably from the community of property , the community of achievements and the carriageway , in which the service wages in particular go to the common property that was managed by the husband. Reserved property was also what was given to the woman by a third party free of charge in the event of death or among the living, if the testator had determined by willing the third party at the time of the donation that the acquisition should be reserved property. What the woman acquired as a substitute for the destruction, damage or confiscation of an item belonging to the reserved property (→ surrogate ) on the basis of a right belonging to her reserved property (especially material and legal fruits) or through a legal transaction that related to the reserved property, also fell on their reserved property.
Property brought in was the woman's property, which was not reserved property.
Management by the man
The woman's property brought in was subjected to the man's administration. That did not change the law and legal capacity of women. He had to properly manage the goods brought in and, upon request, provide the woman with information about the status of the administration. Regarding the objects belonging to the property brought in , the man had a right of possession .
The reserved property (including wages) was administered independently by the woman.
The administrative law of the management of property went much less far than the administrative law of the various types of community of property went and go. The man had no right of disposal over the items of the property brought in for his administrative right to the property. There was only power of disposal in a few cases provided for by law. Conversely, in order to prevent erosion of the administrative and usage rights, the woman was not able to dispose of items from the property without the consent of the man. However, there were also some legally provided exceptions on the woman's side, in which the woman did not require the consent of the man.
With regard to the goods brought in, the man had no power of representation for or against the woman. However, the woman's creditors could only request the rectification of their claims from the property brought in if the man had agreed to the obligation transaction that the woman had concluded.
The man only had litigation standing for and against the woman in matters of the property brought in if, as an exception, he had sole power of disposal. Conversely, the woman could only bring proceedings in matters relating to the goods brought in if the man had given his consent.
Usufruct and encumbrances
As a result of the marriage, the property brought in by the woman was encumbered with a right of use by the husband. This was designed as a usufruct. In return, the man had to bear the burden of the goods brought in and to pay insurance costs for items of the goods brought in. The man had to repay recurring cash benefits (loan interest, maintenance payments) from his property, which the woman was obliged to make if their correction could be demanded from the property brought in. The man also had to pay the costs of litigation that he or the woman carried out in matters relating to the property brought in from his property. If the man made expenditures on the woman's property brought in, which he was entitled to consider necessary under the circumstances, he could demand compensation provided that he was not responsible for the expenditures himself.
The husband and wife were jointly and severally liable for the wife's obligations.
In addition to the obligation to bear the burden, the man had to cover the marital expenses (e.g. rent for a common household) alone.
criticism
Because of the husband's right to administer and use the property brought in by the wife, the administration of use violated Article 3 of the Basic Law. The fact that the man had to consent to the woman's disposal of objects of the property brought in, unless the man or woman were exceptionally entitled to sole disposal, and also obligations that were to be corrected from the property brought in required the consent of the man the imported goods are economically paralyzed. In contrast to the various types of community of property, the administrator here did not have extensive power of disposal. However, in many marriages in which both spouses worked and hardly brought any wealth into the marriage (especially in "proletarian marriages"), the administrative and right of use hardly had any effect, because the money that the woman received through her work or self-employment of a purchase, was the conditional property, as well as the objects which she acquired with her income.
It was also criticized that in “civil” marriages, in which the woman usually performed domestic duties, no compensation for the gain was provided. The woman's participation in the gain could be achieved through the agreement of a community of property , community of achievements or carpooling . Because the husband was the administrator of the property in these estates, the wife's independent economic freedom of movement was restricted more than in the case of property management.
From the man's point of view, too, the management of the property was often inequitable. If the wife had little or no assets that she could bring into the marriage, his right to use the property (which did not include the wife's wages) was economically undermined. Although he could hardly bear fruit, he had to bear the marital expenses and other costs of the woman and her property (e.g. rent costs), which is why marriage was often economically unattractive for the man.
