Lien (Germany)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The right of lien is a limited real right in German civil law . It arises from a contract or by virtue of the law on an object and protects the enforceability of a claim against default by the debtor. For this purpose, the lien allows the debtor to satisfy his claim by selling the pledged item; this is basically done by public auction .

The lien is strictly ancillary , i.e. its existence, transfer and enforcement depend on the claim to be secured. It can be ordered for movable property and rights by contractual agreement or statutory order. Liens on immovable property, such as mortgage and mortgage are as liens referred and are subject to separate regulations. The same applies to ships that can be encumbered with ship mortgages .

The German Civil Code (BGB) regulates in detail in § 1204 to § 1259 the lien on movable property as a basic type of pledge. The lien on rights is based on this. In this regard, however, there are priority special rules in § 1273 to § 1296 BGB. Another form of lien is the seizure lien regulated in Section 804 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) , which arises in the context of foreclosure.

In practice, the requirements for ordering liens are often found to be cumbersome. For this reason, the right of lien has been replaced by other means of security in many areas of application, in particular by means of security transfer and assignment as security .

History and nature of the lien

The Roman law knew two kinds of lien on things: the propertied bound pignus and the landless hypotheca . These rights could be established for movable and immovable property. Medieval German law also provided for the possibility of pledging movable and immovable property; the acquisition of possession was initially not absolutely necessary for this. However, the need of business transactions for legal security led to the fact that the non-possessory lien was perceived as too insecure, as its owner ultimately had to trust that the debtor had not established any further liens on the thing. Therefore, the publicity requirements tightened . In the course of this, the prerequisites for pledging movable and immovable property diverged: The contractual ordering of a pledge on a movable property generally required the pledgee to acquire possession of the pledged property. This was often not necessary for pledging an immovable property; instead, the pledging had to be entered in a public register. This ultimately led to the development of mortgages as a separate category of security interests.

First edition of the Civil Code from 1804, first page

The reception of Roman law in Europe initially led to a resurgence of the non-possessory lien on movable property. For reasons of legal certainty, however, this was later largely abandoned in favor of the property-bound pledge. According to the Prussian Mortgage and Concurs Ordinance of 1722, the creation of a lien required the pledged item to be handed over; this law therefore followed the bargaining chip principle. The same was true in the Prussian General Land Law of 1794. The bargaining chip principle continued to form the basis of numerous 19th century laws, such as the French Civil Code , the Austrian General Civil Code and the General German Commercial Code . The authors of the BGB, which came into force in January 1900, also assumed that the creation of a lien basically requires the obligee to obtain possession of the pledged item. The rules of the BGB on liens have remained largely unchanged to this day.

The right of lien is a real right because of its placement in the third book of the BGB and its connection to a thing. It offers the creditor of a claim the opportunity to satisfy himself by realizing the pledged item. In foreclosure, it entitles its owner to sue for preferential satisfaction from the pledge ( Section 805 ZPO). In this way, the pledgee can ensure that the proceeds from the realization of the pledged item are initially used to meet his claim. The property-based lien also enables its owner to defend against the enforcement of the pledged item by another creditor with the third party action according to § 771 ZPO. In the insolvency of the debtor, the lien entitles the holder to segregation in accordance with Section 50 (1) of the Insolvency Code .

Creation of a lien on a movable thing (Fahrnispfel)

Liens on movable property, also known as driving liens, can be divided into three groups on the basis of their creation conditions: contractual liens, statutory liens and liens.

Contractual lien (pledge)

The contractual lien, known as a bargaining deposit, is the norm according to the legal system.

Existence of a claim to be secured

In accordance with Section 1204 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), the pledge is ordered to secure a claim. Its creation therefore presupposes that there is a claim to be secured. This shows the accessory nature of the lien. If the secured claim is void , for example because of immorality ( Section 138 BGB), no lien can be established for it. However, if services have already been provided on the basis of the void claim, the pledge can secure claims from unjust enrichment .

The content of the secured claim must be able to change into a monetary claim when the pledge is sold, since only such a claim can be met within the scope of the pledge.

According to Section 1204 (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB), the lien can also be ordered to secure a future or conditional claim. This assumes that the origin of the claim can be determined. The agreement that the pledge secures all current and future claims between the parties is sufficient for this. According to the prevailing opinion, a lien arises for a future claim at the point in time at which the further requirements of the lien are met. However, the claimant only acquires a right of exploitation when the claim arises. Securing future claims in banking is of practical importance.

As soon as the lien has been ordered for a claim, the parties cannot exchange the claim retrospectively, as this would jeopardize the enforcement of the accessoreity principle. Whether the secured claim can be subsequently expanded is a matter of dispute in jurisprudence. For this possibility it is stated that the law in § 1210 Abs. 1 S. 2 BGB expressly excludes the extension only for certain cases. On the other hand, it is argued that this disadvantaged subordinate pledgees.

According to the legal model, the debtor of the secured claim is also the owner of the pledged item ( Section 1248 BGB); However, this is not mandatory, so that an owner can also pledge his property to secure a third-party claim. The situation is different on the creditor side: the lien holder and the debtor must be the same person, as otherwise the claim and the lien would fall apart. This would not be compatible with the principle of accessoryity.

Agreement on the deposit order

According to Section 1205, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code, the pledgee and the owner of the pledged item must contractually agree on the establishment of the lien . The agreement can relate to the encumbrance of an item itself or, in accordance with Section 1258 of the German Civil Code, also to the co-ownership of such an item . The principle of certainty under property law requires that the parties agree on the encumbrance of a particular object. A material entity as such, such as a library or a warehouse with changing inventory, can therefore not be pledged. However, it is possible to pledge several items under a collective name; then there is an individual lien on each item covered by the designation.

Handover of the pledge

Furthermore, Section 1205, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) requires that the owner hands over the pledged item to the pledgee. This should enable legal traffic to recognize that the owner cannot dispose of the thing unhindered. This shows the principle of publicity under property law, which serves in particular to protect other creditors. If the transfer requirement is not met, there is no right of lien. However, some voices from legal doctrine assume that the failed pledge according to § 140 BGB can be reinterpreted as the agreement of a right of retention .

Outside of the BGB, the handover requirement is modified for certain areas or declared unnecessary. In the case of register liens that are ordered on aircraft , for example, the pledging is noted in a register instead of the transfer. When the yard inventory is pledged, in accordance with the Lease Credit Act, the transfer is replaced by a written pledge agreement deposited with the local court so that the farm operator can continue to use the inventory economically.

Requirements for the handover
Pledge seal

The transfer presupposes that the pledger transfers his direct possession of the pledged item to the pledgee. He must completely lose his immediate possession, so must no longer have the possibility of directly influencing the matter.

The handover can be done by handing the pledged item over to the pledger, as well as by handing over all keys to the room in which the pledged item is located. If the pledger keeps a key with the knowledge of the obligee, no pledge arises because of the continuing direct possession. If the owner secretly keeps a key, this does not prevent pledging, according to prevailing opinion. The handover can also be carried out with the involvement of third parties, such as guardians or property servants ( § 855 BGB). Instead of the item, a corresponding traditional paper can be handed over, such as a loading note ( § 444 HGB). However, it is not sufficient to attach a pledge seal to the pledged item, as this does not affect the actual possibility of the pledger to influence the item.

Transfer surrogates

Similar to the transfer of ownership according to § 929 - § 931 BGB, the transfer can be replaced by other actions (so-called transfer surrogates ).

In accordance with Section 1205, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, BGB, a mirror image of Section 929, Sentence 2, BGB, the agreement on the creation of a lien is sufficient if the pledgee already directly or indirectly owns the pledged item ( brevi manu traditio ). After all, the purpose of the handover requirement has already been fulfilled in this case.

. According to § 1205 para 2 BGB, the transfer of a thing that the owner about the landlord or lessor in indirect possession has to be replaced in that this according to § 870 BGB his claim against the direct owner assigns ; this represents a parallel to § 931 BGB. § 1205 Abs. 2 BGB furthermore requires - like the pledging of a right according to § 1280 BGB - that the owner of the pledged item notifies his agent of the pledge. This should make the pledge recognizable for legal traffic. The notification is a declaration of intent that requires receipt .

Finally, § 1206 BGB provides for a transfer surrogate that has no equivalent in the acquisition of property. According to this, a lien can also be established by the owner granting the pledgee qualified joint ownership of thething. In this case, as an exception, it is not necessary for the pledger to give up his immediate possession completely. With this regulation, the legislature wanted to simplify the pledging of warehouses. Qualified co-ownership exists if the pledgee and pledger can only access the pledged item directly together. It can be justified by the fact that the thing is placed under co-locking of the obligee, for example by being locked in a safe that can only be opened jointly by the pledger and the pledgee. Alternatively, the thing can be handed over to a third party who may only hand it over to the pledger and pledgee jointly.

No equivalent is § 930 BGB in the lien, according to which a thing can be useful by itself transferor and transferee that by agreeing a constructive possession to some that the seller has the thing for the purchaser in the future. A lien cannot be established in this way, since otherwise its existence would not be clearly recognizable for legal transactions. The publicity requirement is therefore more pronounced in the lien than in the property right.

Effects of the disclosure requirement in practice

In legal practice, the statutory disclosure requirements, in particular the exclusion of pledging by the constitution of property, have resulted in the contractual lien having a small scope compared to other loan collateral: the fact that ownership of the thing must be transferred to the pledgee leads to the fact that the debtor cannot use the thing to meet the outstanding claim. In particular, if the debtor is dependent on the thing for economic reasons, the change of ownership is therefore inexpedient from the perspective of the pledgee. It is therefore often in the interests of the parties that the debtor can continue to own and use the thing. As a loan security that makes exactly this possible, the transfer of ownership has become established in practice, in which the owner transfers his property to the creditor to secure a claim. The transfer of ownership has replaced the deposit as a means of security in many areas of application.

In certain areas, however, the contractual lien is a common means of security: when taking out small loans from pawnbrokers and in the banking sector , particularly Lombard loans . Also working entrepreneurs have regular contractual liens order to avoid weaknesses in the statutory lien.

Eligibility and first purchase in good faith

In principle, only the owner of the pledged item is entitled to issue a lien. In accordance with Section 185 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the latter can authorize a third party to do so .

An unauthorized person can order a contractual lien in accordance with Section 1207 of the German Civil Code (BGB) in accordance with the provisions on the acquisition of property in good faith from the unauthorized person . This option serves to protect legal transactions, which often cannot tell whether the pledger is the owner. The law fundamentally weights the need for protection of legal transactions resulting from this more strongly than the interests of the owner.

The purchase of a pledge in good faith requires that the pledger is legitimized by an objective legal certificate. This consists in the pledger handing over the thing to the pledgee or giving him possession of the thing in some other way.

Furthermore, the pledgee must be in good faith. This applies if he considers the pledger to be the owner of the thing without negligently misjudging its lack of gross ownership . Anyone who disregards the due diligence required in traffic in a particularly serious manner acts with gross negligence. In contrast to the acquisition of a motor vehicle, it is not necessary to check the statements of the pledger against the vehicle registration document in order to avoid accusations of gross negligence. In commercial transactions , it is sufficient in accordance with Section 366 of the Commercial Code (HGB) if the pledgee assumes that the pledger is entitled to order pledges, since it is common among merchants to use goods as the person entitled to dispose of them, e.g. as part of a sales commission or an extended retention of title .

Finally, acquisition in good faith may not be excluded according to Section 935 (1) BGB. The owner must not have lost his direct possession of the thing involuntarily. In this case, the law exceptionally assesses the interests of the owner as more worthy of protection than the interests of legal transactions.

Statutory Lien

In various cases, the law provides for the creation of a lien without the need for a contractual agreement.

Development requirements and examples

A statutory right of lien is established by the realization of its statutory fact. These facts can be assigned to two types of liens: property-bound and non-property.

Liens are tied to ownership, the creation of which requires that the pledgee acquires possession of the pledged item. These include the contractor's lien ( Section 647 BGB), the commission agent ( Section 397 HGB) and the carrier ( Section 440 HGB). The contractor's lien arises, for example, when the customer gives the contractor possession of an item of which he is the owner in order to fulfill the contract for work. This is the case, for example, when a person hands a vehicle over to a workshop for repair.

Possessed liens can arise without the pledgee gaining possession of the pledged item. These include, for example, the landlord's lien ( § 562 - § 562d BGB) and the innkeeper ( § 704 BGB). However, their creation presupposes that the pledged item is deliberately brought into the control of the obligee. They are therefore also referred to as contribution liens. The landlord's lien arises, for example, on objects that are the property of the tenant, are brought into the rental property and may be seized in foreclosure.

Acquisition in good faith

Section 366 of the HGB stipulates that certain liens regulated in the HGB, such as that of the commission agent, can be acquired in good faith. The requirements correspond to those of the bona fide lien acquisition in accordance with the BGB. However, good faith in the pledger's right of disposal is sufficient.

There is disagreement in jurisprudence as to whether and to what extent liens outside of the HGB can be acquired in good faith. In accordance with Section 1257 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the provisions on contractual liens apply to the lien created by law. § 1257 BGB refers, among other things, to § 1207 BGB, which enables the acquisition of a contractual lien in good faith. Whether this reference enables a legal lien to be acquired in good faith is a matter of dispute in jurisprudence:

There is broad agreement that a non-possessory lien cannot be acquired in good faith due to the lack of a sufficient legal entity. For example, a landlord cannot in good faith acquire a pledge on something that does not belong to the tenant.

A view shared by the jurisprudence also denies the possibility of acquiring a lien in good faith. It argues that Section 1257 of the German Civil Code (BGB) only refers to the rules of contractual liens for liens that have already arisen. Furthermore, the legal system speaks against the good faith acquisition of a legal lien in the BGB: The fact that this is expressly provided for in commercial law shows that the legislature viewed the good faith acquisition as an exception, but not as the rule. This is true, according to the case law, if the owner of the matter is in agreement with the order of the pledge: First, that is not decisive for the formation of the statutory lien, on the other hand would thus a way not specified in the law commitment authority provided.

Some voices from legal doctrine oppose this by stating that the creditor's interests and need for protection do not differ from those in the case of a contractual lien in the case of a legally binding lien. No systematic argument against acquisition in good faith can be inferred from § 366 HGB: the legislature had taken the possibility of acquisition in good faith for granted in the BGB, which is why it waived a separate regulation there.

The practical significance of this dispute is limited, since contractors in particular can regularly order contractual liens in their terms and conditions in order to enable an acquisition in good faith. The case law considers such clauses - contrary to criticism from the literature - to be effective.

Lien

The seizure lien arises in accordance with Section 804 (1) ZPO through the seizure of an item by the bailiff or a claim by the enforcement court . The legal nature and prerequisites for the creation of the lien are disputed. According to the prevailing mixed theory, it assumes that the debtor is the owner of the object, that it is entangled and that there is a claim to be secured. According to Section 804 (2) ZPO, the lien gives its owner the rights of the owner of a contractual lien.

Transfer of Lien

principle

The obligee of a contractual lien can transfer his lien to third parties in accordance with § 1250 BGB. The transfer of the lien is determined by its strict accessory nature: it takes place in accordance with Section 1250 (1) sentence 1 BGB by assigning ( Section 398 sentence 1 BGB) the secured claim. A transfer of the lien that is detached from the claim is ineffective in accordance with Section 1250 (1) sentence 2 BGB. If the pledgee agrees with the purchaser that only the claim should be transferred, Section 1250 (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB) will for this reason order the expiry of the lien.

In accordance with Section 1251 (2) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the transfer of the lien basically means that the purchaser assumes the obligations of the seller towards the pledgee. The seller is liable in accordance with Section 1251, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) for fulfilling his obligations as a guarantor for damages. This does not apply if the claim is transferred by law - for example in Section 268 Paragraph 3, Section 426 Paragraph 2 BGB or on the basis of a legal obligation - for example in Section 281 BGB.

Second acquisition in good faith

If the seller has no right of lien, the question arises whether he can effectively sell such a right to someone in good faith. Two groups of cases can be distinguished:

If the creditor has no claim, the prevailing view rejects the possibility of a bona fide purchase, since the transfer of a non-existent claim would be futile. In contrast to the case in mortgage law with Section 1138 BGB, the law does not provide a regulation for pledges that protects good faith in this case. According to a different opinion, a bona fide acquisition is possible in those cases in which the law provides for a bona fide acquisition of claims.

If the obligee has a claim, a bona fide acquisition is also excluded according to the prevailing opinion: On the one hand, the lien is not transferred by legal transaction, but by virtue of a statutory order, so that the provisions of good faith are not applicable to their purpose. On the other hand, there is no sufficient legal certificate for the authorization of the seller; Possession of the pledged item has no significance for the transfer of the lien according to § 1250 BGB. In contrast, it is sometimes argued that the transfer of the pledged item represents a legal certificate that justifies the purchase in good faith.

Protection of the pledge

After the pledge has been established, the pledgee has an interest in protecting the pledged item from impairment in order not to jeopardize its necessary realization.

In order to make it easier for the pledgee to protect the lien, Section 1227 of the German Civil Code (BGB) gives him a number of defense rights through which he can protect the thing like an owner. For example, he can demand the surrender of the pledged item from third parties in accordance with Section 985 of the German Civil Code (BGB). He can ward off disturbances of the pledge via § 1004 BGB. The owning pledgee can also assert possessorial and petitory property protection claims. If the pledged item is damaged, the pledgee can also claim damages from the injuring party, for example from tort law and the owner-owner relationship .

In the relationship between the pledgee and the pledger, the pledge agreement establishes a special legal relationship. The law specifies its content by imposing several duties of care on the pledgee when handling the pledged item. The parties are free to terminate these obligations or to agree further obligations. So must the mortgagee the mortgaged property in accordance with § 1215 BGB store . He may only use this if he makes a relevant regulation with the pledger in accordance with § 1213 BGB. The result is a use pledge ( antichresis ). Section 1216 of the German Civil Code gives the pledgee a claim to compensation for the use of the pledged item in accordance with the law of management without an order . If the pledgee violates an obligation under the pledge agreement, the pledger can issue a warning . If this remains unsuccessful, he can, in accordance with Section 1217 (1) BGB, demand that the pledge be deposited at the expense of the pledgee or transferred to a custodian appointed by the court.

If the lien expires, the pledger has a claim against the pledgee to surrender the pledged item under Section 1223 (1) BGB. A further claim to surrender follows from § 1254 BGB. According to this, owners and pledgers can demand the return of the item if the enforcement of the pledge is permanently blocked by an objection.

Realization of the pledge

In accordance with Section 1228 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), the lien is realized by selling the pledged item. This is possible as soon as you are eligible for a deposit. According to Section 1228 (2) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), this generally occurs when the secured claim becomes due .

procedure

§ 1233 BGB differentiates between the sale of pledges with and without a title.

Untitled sale

The statutory rule is the sale without a title. In this case, the pledged item is publicly auctioned by an authorized person in accordance with Section 1235 (1) BGB. The aim of this process is to achieve the highest possible revenue. The place and time of the auction must be publicly announced according to § 1237 sentence 1 BGB; As a rule, this is done through a newspaper advertisement. Items that predominantly consist of gold or silver may not be auctioned at less than the current price of the respective precious metal in accordance with Section 1240 (1) BGB.

In accordance with Section 1243, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the aforementioned requirements must be met so that a pawn sale is lawful. Some other requirements made by the law do not affect the legality of the sale. However, your culpable violation leads to liability of the obligee for damages according to § 1243 Abs. 2 BGB. For example, according to Section 1234 (1) BGB, he should threaten the owner with a pledge sale. According to Section 1234 (2) BGB, the sale should take place at the earliest one month thereafter. Both rules express that the deposit sale is the ultima ratio. Furthermore, the auction according to § 1236 BGB takes place in principle at the place where the pledged item is located.

If the pledged item has a stock exchange or market price, it can also be sold privately by a trading broker ( Section 93 HGB) in accordance with Section 1235 (2), Section 1221 BGB. The creditor is free to choose between auctioning and selling over the counter, but has to choose the most profitable option.

Sale with title

As an alternative to the realization according to § 1235 BGB, the pledgee can take action against the owner from an enforceable title, which states that the realization of the pledged item is tolerated. This enables him to sell the pledged item in accordance with the regulations on foreclosure due to monetary claims in movable property. Then it comes to the auction by the bailiff. In practice, this procedure is important if the owner raises objections to the sale, the unfoundedness of which the creditor can establish in a legal process.

Recovery by agreement

Pursuant to Section 1245 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code, the owner and pledgee are free to deviate from the legally prescribed recovery procedure.

Consequences of a lawful deposit sale

By winning the auction, the pledgee concludes a purchase contract with the highest bidder. He then transfers the matter to them in accordance with the general provisions. In accordance with Section 1242, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code, the pledgee has the right to do so. Section 1242, Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) stipulates that the rights of third parties to the thing expire; the highest bidder thus acquires unencumbered property.

The legal position of the proceeds is judged by the amount of the claim: Insofar as it is necessary to satisfy the secured claim and the realization costs, the pledgee acquires ownership of it. Insofar as the proceeds exceed the claim, the pledgee and pledger acquire co-ownership of the proceeds: the seller acquires a part of the co-ownership as a legal transaction , the owner by means of real surrogation according to § 1247 sentence 2 BGB.

If the debtor and owner are identical, the secured claim expires in accordance with Section 1247 sentence 1 BGB upon fulfillment. Otherwise the owner acquires the claim against the debtor according to § 1225 S. 1 BGB.

If the pledged item has a defect, the pledgee is liable to the purchaser as the seller under warranty law . However, Section 445 of the German Civil Code limits the seller's liability if the pledged item is sold as a pledge in a public auction. According to this, the seller is only liable if he has fraudulently concealed a defect or has assumed a quality guarantee. According to the prevailing opinion, this provision aims to protect the seller from warranty liability, as he usually does not know the object of purchase and therefore cannot assess its condition.

Consequences of an illegal pawn sale

If the seller has no right of lien or if he sells the pledge in disregard of mandatory procedural regulations, the buyer can acquire ownership of the thing in good faith in accordance with § 1244 BGB. This presupposes that there is an act of good faith in §§ 932–934 BGB and that the purchaser is in good faith with regard to the seller's right of exploitation. § 1244 BGB does not refer to § 935 BGB, which is why a lost item can also be acquired in good faith.

Who owes the proceeds from the realization depends on the reason for which the seller was not entitled to the realization: If the lien did not exist, the proceeds belong to the pledger alone, as the pledgee has no material right to it. If, on the other hand, only one procedural requirement has been disregarded, the majority of the view is that the proceeds go to the creditor.

Sunset clause

Section 1229 of the German Civil Code (BGB) declares agreements null and void, by virtue of which the pledgee and owner agree that the former shall acquire ownership of the pledged item upon maturity. Such an agreement is only admissible upon entry into the deposit. This legal norm aims to protect the pledger from recklessly running the risk of losing property while awaiting the satisfaction of the secured claim.

Majority of liens

Several creditors can acquire a pledge and thus a right of exploitation on one thing. If this happens, the liens are ranked relative to one another, which is basically determined by the priority principle according to § 1209 BGB . So when two liens meet, the older one has priority. The opposite is true in accordance with Section 442 HGB in the relationship between certain statutory liens under the HGB. If a priority lien expires, the subordinate ones move up.

According to § 1232 S. 1 BGB, the ranking determines the order in which the creditors are satisfied. A subordinate pledgee can therefore only access the item if the senior pledgee is selling the pledge.

If the acquirer of a lien is in good faith with regard to the lack of priority third-party liens, his lien takes precedence over the existing liens in accordance with Section 1208 BGB. This regulation shows parallels to § 936 BGB when acquiring property.

Defense against recovery

If the pledger is also the debtor of the claim, he can, due to the accessory nature of the lien, raise the objections he is entitled to against the claim against the realization of the pledge. For example, he can assert that the secured claim has already been met. Even if the pledger and the debtor fall apart, the former can defend himself with the defenses of the debtor in accordance with Section 1211 (1) sentence 1 BGB and take action against the realization of the pledged item. In addition, he can defend himself by arguing that the lien does not exist, for example because it was not validly appointed. Furthermore, the pledger can raise the defenses that a surety is entitled to under Section 770 BGB. He can assert that the debtor can destroy the claim by contesting the legal transaction; In addition to the wording of § 770 BGB, this also includes other design rights. He can also object that the creditor can satisfy himself by offsetting the debtor. If the debtor waives defense, this does not prevent the pledger from asserting them in accordance with Section 1211 (2) BGB.

Pursuant to Section 1211, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the German Civil Code, the pledger cannot claim that in the event of the death of the debtor, his heir is only liable to a limited extent. According to Section 216 (1) BGB, the pledger cannot prevent the obligee from being satisfied under the lien by arguing that the secured claim is statute-barred. According to Section 216 (3) BGB, this does not apply to claims for interest and other recurring services.

However, if the personal debtor dies, the pledger cannot claim that the debtor's heir is only liable to a limited extent in accordance with Section 1211 (1) sentence 2 BGB. Ultimately, the risk of the debtor defaulting on payment arises from which the pledge is intended to protect the creditor.

Extinction of the lien

Settlement of the secured claim and consolidation

The lien expires in accordance with Section 1252 of the German Civil Code (BGB) if the secured claim expires. This can happen in particular through fulfillment ( § 362 BGB) as a result of a voluntary performance by the debtor.

If the pledger and the debtor fall apart, both may satisfy the creditor. If the pledger fulfills the claim in this case, it does not expire, but is transferred to him through legal assignment in accordance with § 1225 sentence 1 BGB. This enables him to take recourse against the debtor. Because of the accessory nature of the lien, the pledger also acquires it. If the pledger is also the owner of the pledged item, this leads to consolidation. In accordance with Section 1256 (1) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), this generally leads to the expiry of the lien. In accordance with Section 1256 (1) sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB), this does not occur as an exception if the secured claim is encumbered with the rights of a third party. If the owner has a legal interest in the continued existence of the lien, its continued existence is faked in accordance with Section 1256 (2) BGB.

If the owner is not pledger, he may also satisfy the pledgee in accordance with § 1249 sentence 1 BGB as soon as the debtor is allowed to meet the secured claim. If he exercises this redemption right , he acquires the secured claim. Notwithstanding Section 1256 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 BGB, the right of lien can also be transferred to him and remain in his person. This is because the owner has a legal interest in maintaining the lien, in particular, if third parties have subordinate real rights to the pledged item: If the primary lien were to expire, the rank of the subordinate rights would improve. If, on the other hand, the owner retains the priority right of lien, this also gives him priority in the realization. Other owners of real rights, such as usufructuary users, are also entitled to satisfy the pledgee in accordance with § 1249 sentence 1 BGB .

If several of their items pledge to secure a claim and one of them satisfies the obligee, he can, according to the prevailing opinion , take recourse to the remaining pledges analogous to Section 774 (2), Section 426 of the German Civil Code. If the creditor is protected by a pledge and another type of collateral, such as a surety, the first party to provide the security could take full recourse against the other collateral provider. This is generally found to be inappropriate, as the recourse options depend on who happens to be the first to perform. This would result in a race between the protection providers. While it is sometimes argued that the surety should be privileged because of the particularly high risk of personal liability vis-à-vis the pledger when the pledge and a guarantee coincide, the prevailing view is that the recourse claim of the first payer is reduced proportionally, regardless of the type of collateral.

Further reasons for expiry

In accordance with Section 1253 (1) sentence 1 BGB, the lien expires if the pledgee consciously returns the item to the owner or pledger, as there can be no lien on the pledged item without the obligee's possession. Section 1253, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the German Civil Code makes it clear that this legal consequence is not at the disposal of the parties involved.

The lien continues to expire if the pledged thing goes under.

Furthermore, the pledgee can waive the lien by unilateral declaration of intent in accordance with Section 1255 (1) BGB. The terms and conditions of credit institutions provide for a right of the pledger to the submission of the waiver if the pledgee over secure is if the value of its collateral exceed the secured claim so much.

Special features of the lien on a right

The lien on a right entitles the pledgee to exercise the right to a limited extent instead of the pledger. This form of lien is not of great importance in practice, but it is more widespread than pledge in kind. For example, banks can regularly be given a pledge on their debtor's current and future claims in order to secure their claims against the customer.

In accordance with Section 1273 (2) of the German Civil Code, the legal treatment of the pledge on a right is generally based on the provisions on the lien on movable property, insofar as these are properly applicable.

Emergence

In accordance with Section 1274, Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code, a lien can in principle be created for any right that can be transferred to the pledgee. This applies, for example, to land charges, shares in a limited liability company (GmbH) and expectant rights . No legal pledge can be placed on the property right, as this would correspond to a pledge in kind.

The creation of a pledge on a right presupposes, like the pledge in kind, that there is a claim to be secured, the parties agree on the pledge and the pledger is entitled to pledge. For the rest, the pledge order is based on the provisions for the transfer of the right to be pledged in accordance with Section 1274 (1) sentence 1 BGB. If, for example, the handover of an item is required after this, this is required to establish a lien. If the claim can be transferred by assignment, the obligee must notify the debtor of the pledge in accordance with § 1280 BGB. The last-mentioned requirement, which stems from the principle of disclosure, has led in legal practice to the fact that parties often undertake an assignment of security instead of a pledge, since this does not require notification.

Recovery

The legal pledge is realized through foreclosure. Therefore, in accordance with § 1277 sentence 1 BGB, it basically requires an enforceable title that obliges the right holder to tolerate the realization by the pledgee.

No title is required for the pledging of a claim, the most important practical application of the legal attachment. Instead, the realization is as follows: Before the debtor is ready for a pledge, pursuant to Section 1281 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the right holder and pledgee must jointly pay. If he pays on the claim, the claimant becomes the owner of the performance, the pledgee acquires a lien on it. As soon as the mortgage is ready to be lien, only the pledgee may collect the claim in accordance with Section 1282 (1) BGB. If the debtor pays money, the pledgee acquires ownership of it, thereby fulfilling his claim against the pledger. If the debtor performs a thing, the legal situation corresponds to that which already exists before the deposit is ready. Banks usually enforce their lien on the debtor's claims with the help of an account lock, which means that the debtor can no longer debit his account.

Irregular deposit and bottle deposit

An irregular or irregular pledge ( pignus irregulare ) is a legal relationship which, although it has parallels to the right of lien, is not a pledge in the legal sense. In contrast to the regular pledge, the pledgee does not owe the surrender of the thing left by the pledger, but only surrender a comparable object. The deposit regulations apply accordingly to the irregular deposit. In legal practice, the irregular deposit as a cash deposit is widespread.

When it comes to bottle deposit , case law recognizes different legal arrangements: If the manufacturer labels his bottle individually, he remains the owner of the bottle even after it has been sold to retailers and end users. The bottle deposit secures his right to return the bottle as a deposit. If there is no customization, the retailer first, and then the end consumer, acquire sole ownership of the bottle. The bottle deposit then represents the price at which the bottle is repurchased. The legal interpretation of these distribution channels is controversial; in some cases it is interpreted as an irregular lien, in some cases as compensation paid in advance. In any case, there is agreement that the bottle deposit is not a deposit in the legal sense.

International private law

If a lien is related to several legal systems, the question arises as to which material law applies. This is judged according to the rules of international private law . In the case of pledges, the law of the state in which the thing is located ( lex rei sitae ) is applicable in accordance with Article 43, Paragraph 1 of the Introductory Act to the Civil Code (EGBGB ). In the case of a pledge on a right, the applicable property law is based on the property law that is applicable to the pledged right.

Legal situation in other states

In Austria the right of lien is regulated in § 447 - § 471 ABGB. These regulations show great parallels to German law. The right of lien is a limited in rem ancillary right that is created by securing a claim on property and rights. It allows its owner to satisfy himself by realizing the pledged item.

In Switzerland , the pledge is regulated in Art. 884 - Art. 915 of the Civil Code. There, too, the legal situation shows great parallels to that in Germany.

The Dutch civil law normalizes the pledge as a pand in Art. 3: 227 to Art. 3: 259 of the Civil Code . Unlike in Germany, the contractual creation of a lien does not necessarily require the obligee to acquire possession of the pledged item. This non-possession pledge was introduced in 1992 and was intended to replace the transfer by way of security.

literature

  • Moritz Brinkmann: Loan security for movable property and receivables . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, ISBN 978-3-16-151233-9 .
  • Wolfgang Hromadka: The development of the bargaining chip principle in the 18th and 19th centuries . Böhlau, Cologne 1971, ISBN 3-412-26071-1 .
  • Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's comment on the German Civil Code: §§ 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 .
  • Achim Rottnauer: The mobile loan collateral with special consideration of non-possessory liens in German and English law . Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 1992, ISBN 3-428-07366-5 .
  • Rolf Serick: German furniture security - outline and basic ideas . Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft, Frankfurt am Main 1988, ISBN 978-3-8005-1002-3 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Wolfgang Wiegand: Before §§ 1204 ff , Rn. 3-11. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's comment on the Civil Code: §§ 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 . Hans Josef Wieling: Property law . 2nd Edition. tape 1 : Property, possession and rights to movable property . Springer, Berlin 2006, ISBN 3-540-29869-X , p. 692-693 . Mark Aschenbrenner: Transfer by way of security in German, English and Brazilian law . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2014, ISBN 978-3-16-153156-9 , p. 9 .
  2. ↑ Wolfgang Wiegand: Before §§ 1204 ff , Rn. 3-11. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's comment on the Civil Code: §§ 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 . Moritz Brinkmann: Loan security for movable property and receivables . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, ISBN 978-3-16-151233-9 , pp. 90 .
  3. ^ Moritz Brinkmann: loan collateral for movable property and claims . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, ISBN 978-3-16-151233-9 , pp. 91 . Mark Aschenbrenner: Transfer by way of security in German, English and Brazilian law . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2014, ISBN 978-3-16-153156-9 , p. 10 .
  4. ↑ Carsten Herresthal: The right of credit protection , Rn. 149-150. In: Michael Martinek (ed.): Staudinger BGB: Cornerstones of civil law . 5th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-8059-0784-2 . Mark Aschenbrenner: Transfer by way of security in German, English and Brazilian law . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2014, ISBN 978-3-16-153156-9 , p. 10 . Wolfgang Hromadka: The development of the bargaining chip principle in the 18th and 19th centuries . Böhlau, Cologne 1971, ISBN 3-412-26071-1 , p. 167-177 .
  5. ↑ Jürgen Damrau: § 1204 , Rn. 1. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 . Klaus Vieweg, Almuth Werner: Property law . 8th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-8006-5696-7 , § 10 Rn. 1.
  6. ^ Christian Tombrink: § 805 , Rn. 1-2. In: Hanns Prütting, Markus Gehrlein (Ed.): Code of Civil Procedure: Comment . 9th edition. Luchterhand Verlag, Cologne 2017, ISBN 978-3-472-08998-8 .
  7. ^ Fritz Baur, Rolf Stürner, Alexander Bruns: Foreclosure law . 13th edition. Müller, Heidelberg 2006, ISBN 3-8114-3111-0 , Rn. 46.10. Johann Kindl: § 771 , Rn. 8. In: Ingo Saenger (Ed.): Code of Civil Procedure: ZPO . 7th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3487-0 .
  8. ↑ Moritz Brinkmann: § 50 , Rn. 1. In: Wilhelm Uhlenbruck, Heribert Hirte, Heinz Vallender (ed.): Insolvency Code: Comment . 14th edition. Vahlen, Munich 2015, ISBN 978-3-8006-4664-7 .
  9. ↑ Ralph Weber: Property Law I: Movable things . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-0654-9 , § 18 marginal no. 1. Hans Schulte-Nölke: Before § 1204 , marginal no. 1. In: Reiner Schulze, Heinrich Dörner, Ina Ebert, Thomas Hoeren, Rainer Kemper, Ingo Saenger, Klaus Schreiber, Hans Schulte-Nölke, Ansgar Staudinger (ed.): Civil Code: Hand Commentary . 8th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-1054-6 .
  10. ^ Fritz Baur, Jürgen Baur, Rolf Stürner: Property Law . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-54479-8 , § 55, Rn. 2.
  11. ^ On the accessory Christian Alexander: Common structures of surety, lien and mortgage . In: Legal Training 2012, p. 481.
  12. ↑ Jürgen Damrau: § 1204 , Rn. 21. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 . Klaus Vieweg, Almuth Werner: Property law . 8th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-8006-5696-7 , § 10 Rn. 24.
  13. ^ Hans Josef Wieling: Property Law . 5th edition. Springer, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-37403-9 , pp. 216 .
  14. ↑ BGHZ 86, 340 (346).
  15. ^ BGH, judgment of April 5, 2005, XI ZR 167/04 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Jurisdiction Report 2005, p. 985.
  16. ↑ Claudia Benedict: The certainty of the "future claim" in the global guarantee . Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin 2006, ISBN 3-8305-2163-4 , p. 69 .
  17. ↑ Jürgen Damrau: § 1204 , Rn. 22. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  18. ^ Klaus Vieweg, Almuth Werner: Property Law . 8th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-8006-5696-7 , § 10 Rn. 25th
  19. ↑ Wolfgang Wiegand: § 1210 , Rn. 6. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's commentary on the German Civil Code: §§ 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 . Jürgen Damrau: § 1210 , Rn. 2. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  20. ^ Harry Westermann, Karl-Heinz Gursky, Dieter Eickmann: Property Law . 8th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2011, ISBN 978-3-8114-7810-7 , § 128, Rn. 5.
  21. ^ Klaus Vieweg, Almuth Werner: Property Law . 8th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-8006-5696-7 , § 10 Rn. 5. Harry Westermann, Karl-Heinz Gursky, Dieter Eickmann: Property law . 8th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2011, ISBN 978-3-8114-7810-7 , § 128, Rn. 1.
  22. ^ Jan Wilhelm: Property Law . 6th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2019, ISBN 978-3-11-059639-7 , Rn. 1846a.
  23. ^ Fritz Baur, Jürgen Baur, Rolf Stürner: Property Law . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-54479-8 , § 55, Rn. 11.
  24. ↑ Wolfgang Wiegand: Before §§ 1204 ff. , Rn. 22. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's commentary on the Civil Code: §§ 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 .
  25. ↑ Wolfgang Wiegand: Before §§ 1204 ff. , Rn. 26. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's commentary on the Civil Code: §§ 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 . Mathias Habersack: § 1205 , Rn. 14. In: Theodor Soergel (Ed.): Civil Code with Introductory Act and subsidiary laws: BGB Volume 16: Property Law 3 (Sections 1018–1296 BGB) . 13th edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2001, ISBN 3-17-015806-6 .
  26. ^ Jan Wilhelm: Property Law . 6th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2019, ISBN 978-3-11-059639-7 , Rn. 1846b.
  27. ↑ Peter Bülow: Preliminary remarks on §§ 1204 ff . In: Rn. 10. In: Alfred Keukenschrijver, Gerhard Ring, Herbert Grziwotz (eds.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Property Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1103-1 .
  28. ^ A b c Klaus Vieweg, Almuth Werner: Property Law . 8th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-8006-5696-7 , § 10 Rn. 13.
  29. ↑ RGZ 77, 201 .
  30. ↑ Peter Bülow: § 1205 , Rn. 27. In: Alfred Keukenschrijver, Gerhard Ring, Herbert Grziwotz (eds.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Property Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1103-1 .
  31. ↑ Peter Bülow: § 1205 , Rn. 27. In: Alfred Keukenschrijver, Gerhard Ring, Herbert Grziwotz (eds.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Property Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1103-1 . Marina Wellenhofer: Property law . 34th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2019, ISBN 978-3-406-75197-4 , § 16, Rn. 15th
  32. ↑ Jürgen Damrau: § 1205 , Rn. 16. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  33. ↑ Jürgen Damrau: § 1205 , Rn. 17-23. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  34. ↑ Peter Bülow: § 1206 , Rn. 5. In: Alfred Keukenschrijver, Gerhard Ring, Herbert Grziwotz (eds.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Property Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1103-1 .
  35. ^ Fritz Baur, Jürgen Baur, Rolf Stürner: Property Law . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-54479-8 , § 55, Rn. 17. Wolfgang Wiegand: § 1205 , Rn. 1. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's commentary on the Civil Code: Sections 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 .
  36. ^ Dietrich Reinicke, Klaus Tiedtke: Loan protection . 5th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2007, ISBN 978-3-472-06652-1 , Rn. 1005. Wolfgang Wiegand: § 1205 , Rn. 1. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's commentary on the Civil Code: Sections 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 .
  37. ↑ Ralph Weber: Property Law I: Movable things . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-0654-9 , § 18 marginal no. 10.
  38. ↑ Stephan Lorenz: Basic knowledge - civil law: The security transfer . In: Legal training 2011, p. 493. Mark Aschenbrenner: Transfer by way of security in German, English and Brazilian law . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2014, ISBN 978-3-16-153156-9 , p. 10 .
  39. ^ Klaus Vieweg, Almuth Werner: Property Law . 8th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-8006-5696-7 , § 10 Rn. 3. Jürgen Damrau: Before § 1204 , Rn. 4. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  40. ^ Fritz Baur, Jürgen Baur, Rolf Stürner: Property Law . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-54479-8 , § 55, Rn. 8th.
  41. ↑ Dietrich Reinicke, Klaus Tiedtke: The good faith acquisition of a lien on movable property . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 1984, p. 202.
  42. ^ Fritz Baur, Jürgen Baur, Rolf Stürner: Property Law . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-54479-8 , § 4, Rn. 15–16, § 52 marginal no. 9. Ralph Weber: Property Law I: Movable Property . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-0654-9 , § 9 marginal no. 3. Jürgen Oechsler: § 932 , Rn. 2-5. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  43. ↑ Peter Kindler, David Paulus: Honest acquisition - foundations and basic principles . In: Juristische Schulung 2013, p. 393 (395).
  44. ^ BGH, judgment of February 9, 2005, VIII ZR 82/03 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2005, p. 1365.
  45. ↑ Klaus Röhl: To differentiate between gross and simple negligence . In: JuristenZeitung 1974, p. 521.
  46. ↑ BGHZ 68, 323 .
  47. ^ Anja Steinbeck: Commercial Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-2936-4 , § 28 marginal no. 1. Peter Kindler, David Paulus: Honest Acquisition - Fundamentals and Principles . In: Juristische Schulung 2013, p. 490 (492).
  48. ↑ Hans Schulte-Nölke: § 935 , Rn. 1. In: Reiner Schulze, Heinrich Dörner, Ina Ebert, Thomas Hoeren, Rainer Kemper, Ingo Saenger, Klaus Schreiber, Hans Schulte-Nölke, Ansgar Staudinger (ed.): Civil Code: Hand Commentary . 8th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-1054-6 . Jürgen Oechsler: § 935 , Rn. 2. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  49. ↑ Christian Alexander: Legal liens on movable property . In: Legal Training 2014, p. 1.
  50. ↑ Christian Alexander: Legal liens on movable property . In: Juristische Schulung 2014, p. 1 (2–3).
  51. ↑ a b Christian Alexander: Statutory liens on movable property . In: Legal Training 2014, p. 1 (2). Marina Wellenhofer: Property law . 34th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2019, ISBN 978-3-406-75197-4 , § 16, Rn. 4th
  52. ↑ BGHZ 34, 122 .
  53. ↑ Ina Ebert: § 562 , Rn. 2-7. In: Reiner Schulze, Heinrich Dörner, Ina Ebert, Thomas Hoeren, Rainer Kemper, Ingo Saenger, Klaus Schreiber, Hans Schulte-Nölke, Ansgar Staudinger (ed.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch: Handkommentar . 8th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-1054-6 .
  54. ↑ Christian Alexander: Legal liens on movable property . In: Juristische Schulung 2014, p. 1 (4–6).
  55. ^ Dietrich Reinicke, Klaus Tiedtke: Loan protection . 5th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2007, ISBN 978-3-472-06652-1 , Rn. 1012. Wolfgang Wiegand: § 1257 , Rn. 6. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's comment on the Civil Code: §§ 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 . Ralph Weber: Property law I: movable property . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-0654-9 , § 18 marginal no. 22nd
  56. ↑ BGHZ 34, 122 . BGHZ 34, 153 . BGHZ 87, 274 . BGHZ 119, 75
  57. ↑ Florian Jacoby: § 647 , Rn. 15-16. In: Michael Martinek (ed.): J. von Staudinger's commentary on the German Civil Code: §§ 631–651 (law on contracts for work and services) . De Gruyter, Berlin 2013, ISBN 3-8059-0784-2 . Dietrich Reinicke, Klaus Tiedtke: Loan security . 5th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2007, ISBN 978-3-472-06652-1 , Rn. 1033. Harry Westermann, Karl-Heinz Gursky, Dieter Eickmann: Property law . 8th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2011, ISBN 978-3-8114-7810-7 , § 132, Rn. 2. Horst-Eberhard Henke: Acquisition of legal property liens in good faith? In: Archiv für civilistische Praxis 161 (1962), p. 1 (24–31).
  58. ↑ BGHZ 34, 122 (125).
  59. ↑ Karsten Schmidt: News about legal liens on property of third parties . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2014, p. 1. Jürgen Damrau: § 1257 , Rn. 3. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 . Jan Wilhelm: Property law . 6th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2019, ISBN 978-3-11-059639-7 , Rn. 1866. Fritz Baur, Jürgen Baur, Rolf Stürner: Property law . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-54479-8 , § 55, Rn. 40. Ralph Weber: Property law I: movable property . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-0654-9 , § 18 marginal no. 24.
  60. ^ Hans Josef Wieling: Property Law . 5th edition. Springer, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-37403-9 , pp. 218 .
  61. ↑ BGHZ 101, 307 .
  62. ↑ BGHZ 23, 293 (299).
  63. ↑ Hans Brox, Wolf-Dietrich Walker: foreclosure law . 11th edition. Vahlen, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-8006-5463-5 , Rn. 382.
  64. ^ Christian Berger: § 1250 , Rn. 1. In: Othmar Jauernig, Rolf Stürner (Hrsg.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch . 17th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-68174-5 .
  65. ↑ Wolfgang Wiegand: § 1250 , Rn. 8. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's commentary on the Civil Code: §§ 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 .
  66. ↑ Jürgen Damrau: § 1251 , Rn. 3. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 . Klaus Vieweg, Almuth Werner: Property law . 8th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-8006-5696-7 , § 10 Rn. 24.
  67. ^ Harry Westermann, Karl-Heinz Gursky, Dieter Eickmann: Property Law . 8th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2011, ISBN 978-3-8114-7810-7 , § 131, Rn. 3. Marina Wellenhofer: Property law . 34th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2019, ISBN 978-3-406-75197-4 , § 16, Rn. 26th
  68. ^ Mathias Habersack: § 1250 , Rn. 6. In: Theodor Soergel (Ed.): Civil Code with Introductory Act and subsidiary laws: BGB Volume 16: Property Law 3 (Sections 1018–1296 BGB) . 13th edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2001, ISBN 3-17-015806-6 . Jürgen Damrau: § 1250 , Rn. 3. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  69. ^ Harry Westermann, Karl-Heinz Gursky, Dieter Eickmann: Property Law . 8th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2011, ISBN 978-3-8114-7810-7 , § 131, Rn. 3. Daniel Latta, Lukas Rademacher: Second acquisition in good faith . In: Juristische Schulung 2008, p. 1052 (1053). Dietrich Reinicke, Klaus Tiedtke: The bona fide acquisition of a lien on movable property . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 1984, p. 202 (212).
  70. ^ Hans Josef Wieling: Property Law . 5th edition. Springer, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-37403-9 , pp. 226 . Philipp Heck: Outline of Property Law . JCB Mohr, Tübingen 1930, § 105 V.
  71. ↑ Peter Bülow: § 1227 , Rn. 1-7. In: Alfred Keukenschrijver, Gerhard Ring, Herbert Grziwotz (eds.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Property Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1103-1 .
  72. ^ Jan Wilhelm: Property Law . 6th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2019, ISBN 978-3-11-059639-7 , Rn. 1876a. Peter Bülow: § 1215 , Rn. 2. In: Alfred Keukenschrijver, Gerhard Ring, Herbert Grziwotz (eds.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Property Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1103-1 .
  73. ^ Hans Josef Wieling: Property Law . 5th edition. Springer, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-37403-9 , pp. 219 .
  74. ^ Hans Josef Wieling: Property Law . 5th edition. Springer, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-37403-9 , pp. 219-220 .
  75. ^ Hans Josef Wieling: Property Law . 5th edition. Springer, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-37403-9 , pp. 220 .
  76. ↑ Stephan Wagner: "Pfundiges Pfand" - For the utilization of the pledged object according to §§ BGB § 1242 ff. BGB . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2015, p. 412 (413).
  77. ↑ Peter Bülow: § 1235 , Rn. 1. In: Alfred Keukenschrijver, Gerhard Ring, Herbert Grziwotz (eds.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Property Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1103-1 .
  78. ↑ Jürgen Damrau: § 1237 , Rn. 1. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  79. ^ Hans Josef Wieling: Property Law . 5th edition. Springer, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-37403-9 , pp. 223 .
  80. ↑ Peter Bülow: § 1234 , Rn. 1. In: Alfred Keukenschrijver, Gerhard Ring, Herbert Grziwotz (eds.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Property Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1103-1 .
  81. ↑ Jürgen Damrau: § 1235 , Rn. 76. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  82. ↑ Ralph Weber: Property Law I: Movable things . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-0654-9 , § 18 marginal no. 35.
  83. ↑ Jürgen Damrau: § 1235 , Rn. 1. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  84. ^ Klaus Vieweg, Almuth Werner: Property Law . 8th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-8006-5696-7 , § 10 Rn. 41.
  85. ^ Klaus Vieweg, Almuth Werner: Property Law . 8th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-8006-5696-7 , § 10 Rn. 42. Wolfgang Wiegand: § 1247 , Rn. 8. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's commentary on the Civil Code: §§ 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 .
  86. ↑ Wolfgang Wiegand: § 1247 , Rn. 18-21. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's comment on the Civil Code: §§ 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 .
  87. ^ Harm Peter Westermann: § 445 , Rn. 1. In: Harm Peter Westermann (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 3 : Sections 433-534, finance leasing, CISG. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-66543-1 .
  88. ^ Mathias Habersack: § 1247 , Rn. 7. In: Theodor Soergel (Hrsg.): Civil Code with Introductory Act and subsidiary laws: BGB Volume 16: Property Law 3 (Sections 1018–1296 BGB) . 13th edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2001, ISBN 3-17-015806-6 . Wolfgang Wiegand: § 1247 , Rn. 17. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's comment on the Civil Code: §§ 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 .
  89. ↑ Peter Bülow: § 1229 , Rn. 2-8. In: Alfred Keukenschrijver, Gerhard Ring, Herbert Grziwotz (eds.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Property Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1103-1 . Peter Derleder, Markus Artz, Peter Derleder, Kai-Oliver Knops, Heinz Bamberger: Handbook on German and European banking and capital market law . 3. Edition. Springer, Berlin 2017, ISBN 978-3-642-45050-1 , § 29, Rn. 110.
  90. ↑ Wolfgang Schaffert: § 442 , Rn. 1. In: Carsten Ebenroth, Karlheinz Boujong, Detlev Joost, Lutz Strohn-Müller (eds.): Commercial Code . 3. Edition. tape 2 : §§ 343-475h. Beck, Munich 2015, ISBN 978-3-8006-4497-1 .
  91. ↑ Jürgen Damrau: § 1250 , Rn. 2-3. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  92. ^ Hans Josef Wieling: Property Law . 5th edition. Springer, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-37403-9 , pp. 219 . Jürgen Damrau: § 1208 , Rn. 1. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  93. ↑ Jürgen Damrau: § 1211 , Rn. 1-7. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 . Harry Westermann, Karl-Heinz Gursky, Dieter Eickmann: Property law . 8th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2011, ISBN 978-3-8114-7810-7 , § 128, Rn. 22nd
  94. ^ Klaus Vieweg, Almuth Werner: Property Law . 8th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-8006-5696-7 , § 10 Rn. 46.
  95. ↑ Peter Bülow: § 1211 , Rn. 17. In: Alfred Keukenschrijver, Gerhard Ring, Herbert Grziwotz (eds.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Property Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1103-1 .
  96. ^ Klaus Vieweg, Almuth Werner: Property Law . 8th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-8006-5696-7 , § 10 Rn. 37.
  97. ^ Christian Berger: § 1256 , Rn. 2. In: Othmar Jauernig, Rolf Stürner (Hrsg.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch . 17th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-68174-5 .
  98. ↑ Peter Bülow: § 1256 , Rn. 7. In: Alfred Keukenschrijver, Gerhard Ring, Herbert Grziwotz (eds.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Property Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1103-1 . Wolfgang Wiegand: § 1256 , Rn. 6. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's commentary on the German Civil Code: §§ 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 .
  99. ^ Christian Berger: § 1249 , Rn. 1. In: Othmar Jauernig, Rolf Stürner (Hrsg.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch . 17th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-68174-5 .
  100. ^ Mathias Habersack: § 1225 , Rn. 10. In: Theodor Soergel (Ed.): Civil Code with Introductory Act and subsidiary laws: BGB Volume 16: Property Law 3 (Sections 1018–1296 BGB) . 13th edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2001, ISBN 3-17-015806-6 . Fritz Baur, Jürgen Baur, Rolf Stürner: Property law . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-54479-8 , § 55, Rn. 23.
  101. ↑ Wolfgang Wiegand: § 1225 , Rn. 28. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's commentary on the Civil Code: Sections 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 .
  102. ↑ Norbert Horn: § 774 , Rn. 68. In: Heinz-Peter Mansel (ed.): J. von Staudinger's commentary on the German Civil Code: §§ 765-778 (guarantee) . De Gruyter, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-8059-1021-7 . Fritz Baur, Jürgen Baur, Rolf Stürner: Property law . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-54479-8 , § 55, Rn. 23. Uwe Hüffer: The adjustment at the meeting of sureties and real credit security as a problem of the debt theory . In: Archives for civilist practice 171 (1971), p. 470.
  103. ↑ BGHZ 108, 179 .
  104. ^ Mathias Habersack: § 1225 , Rn. 12. In: Theodor Soergel (Hrsg.): Civil Code with Introductory Act and subsidiary laws: BGB Volume 16: Property Law 3 (Sections 1018–1296 BGB) . 13th edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2001, ISBN 3-17-015806-6 . Jürgen Damrau: § 1225 , Rn. 10. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 . Harry Westermann, Karl-Heinz Gursky, Dieter Eickmann: Property law . 8th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2011, ISBN 978-3-8114-7810-7 , § 128, Rn. 22nd
  105. ^ Fritz Baur, Jürgen Baur, Rolf Stürner: Property Law . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-54479-8 , § 55, Rn. 6th
  106. ^ Klaus Vieweg, Almuth Werner: Property Law . 8th edition. Franz Vahlen, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-8006-5696-7 , § 10 Rn. 36.
  107. ↑ Jürgen Damrau: § 1255 , Rn. 1. In: Dieter Schwab (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 9. Sections 1589-1921 . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
  108. ↑ Carsten Herresthal: The right of credit protection , Rn. 162. In: Michael Martinek (Ed.): Staudinger BGB: Cornerstone of civil law . 5th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-8059-0784-2 .
  109. ^ Hans Josef Wieling: Property Law . 5th edition. Springer, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-37403-9 , pp. 237 .
  110. ↑ Ralph Weber: Property Law I: Movable things . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-0654-9 , § 18 marginal no. 50.
  111. ^ Hans Josef Wieling: Property Law . 5th edition. Springer, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-37403-9 , pp. 235-236 .
  112. ↑ Jürgen Damrau: Before § 1204 , Rn. 5. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 . Wolfgang Brehm, Christian Berger: Property law . 3. Edition. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2014, ISBN 978-3-16-153285-6 , § 34, Rn. 40.
  113. ^ Hans Josef Wieling: Property Law . 5th edition. Springer, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-37403-9 , pp. 237 .
  114. ↑ Ralph Weber: Property Law I: Movable things . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-0654-9 , § 18 marginal no. 53.
  115. ↑ Ralph Weber: Property Law I: Movable things . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-0654-9 , § 18 marginal no. 55-56.
  116. ^ BGH, judgment of February 12, 2004, IX ZR 98/03 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2004, p. 1660.
  117. ↑ Wolfgang Brehm, Christian Berger: Property Law . 3. Edition. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2014, ISBN 978-3-16-153285-6 , § 34, Rn. 45. Hanns Prütting: Property law . 36th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-70378-2 , Rn. 837-840.
  118. ^ Hanns Prütting: Property law . 36th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-70378-2 , Rn. 783a.
  119. ↑ BGHZ 127, 138 .
  120. ^ Fritz Baur, Jürgen Baur, Rolf Stürner: Property Law . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-54479-8 , § 55, Rn. 5.
  121. ↑ BGHZ 173, 155 .
  122. ↑ Michael Martinek: The bottle deposit as a legal problem . In: Juristische Schulung 1987, p. 514 (520). Frank Schäfer, Ulrich Schäfer: Property and damages law problems of liened goods . In: Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 1983, p. 656. Ralph Weber: Property law I: Movable things . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-0654-9 , § 18 marginal no. 62-72. Jörg-Andreas Weber: The legal nature of the bottle deposit . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2008, p. 948 (949).
  123. ↑ Wolfgang Wiegand: Before §§ 1204 ff , Rn. 28. In: Hans-Heinrich Nöll, Wolfgang Wiegand, Daniel Wiegand: J. von Staudinger's commentary on the Civil Code: Sections 1204–1296 (lien) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8059-1069-9 .
  124. ^ Gert Iro: Civil law. Vol. 4: Property law . 5th edition. Verlag Österreich, Vienna 2013, ISBN 978-3-7046-6516-4 , § 9, Rn. 1.
  125. ↑ [1] Art. 3: 227
  126. ↑ [2] Art. 3: 259
  127. ^ Bob Wessels: Lien under Dutch law . In: Journal for European Private Law 1996, p. 425 (426). Barbara Reich: The Netherlands' silent lien: goal or a mere step on the way to reforming the German security transfer? Universitätsverlag Göttingen, Göttingen 2006, ISBN 3-938616-64-4 , p. 189 .