Stavenrecht

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Stavenrecht is a real right to use a dyke property that is only recognized under customary law on the North Frisian coast , which arose during the 17th century and according to Art. 55, 184 EGBGB was retained as a heritable building right under old law even after the introduction of the BGB . However, since January 1, 1900, it cannot be re-established. Since 1919 it has been subject to the ordinance on heritable building rights .

The Stavenrecht grants the inheritable, transferable, divisible and resilient right to erect and maintain a building on a certain section of the dike.

meaning

The Stavenrecht should serve to encourage families to settle down directly on the coast so that there is always enough workforce in the event of a sudden threat to the sea ​​dike - e.g. B. during storm surges - were available. To this end, the first for the entertainment of sea dikes and the second line put in charge dike associations plots concerning the permanent usufruct on the land-side slope of the Inalienable se lake and dikes means available. The right of ownership to these dyke areas had to be reserved to the issuing associations because of the responsibility for dyke safety , and they received a usage fee ( Stavengeld ) from those entitled to use the Staven law for granting Staven law .

The "Staven" - in the Frisian language as much as house or yard property - were given to the Staven owners or owners for an unlimited period of time for usufruct through development with the right to inherit this Staven law, to sell it in any form or to pledge it. The result is that the Staven rights, which were entered in special Staven land registers at the court after the establishment of the land registry, are now inherited, traded and lent as property rights, including the buildings erected on them, without the inalienable and unencumberable ownership of the dyke properties themselves is touched. The property rights are entered in the corresponding property land registers.

Obligations of the Staven owners

The reservations of the owners of the sea dikes, e.g. B. Dyke and main sewer associations, in addition to the obligation, usually entered in the Staven land register in Section II, to resolve a new “Stavenbrief” to be issued in the name of the Staven owner, only cover compliance with certain standards in the development and planting of the dyke property in the interests of dyke safety .

In terms of property law, the issue of the Staven letters only has a declaratory significance. Since the Stavenrecht was never the subject of the dyke legislation , they also have a function of evidence that should not be underestimated.

The encumbrances in Section II of the Staven land register in favor of the property owner of the sea dykes cannot, as a permanent burden, by their nature give priority to the mortgage or land charge obligations entered in Section III. They are also irrelevant for securing these claims.

Consequences if the building goes down

The Stavenbriefe also provide for the withdrawal of Staven law in the event that the building is destroyed by fire, demolition etc. This risk can be averted by taking out appropriate residential building insurance for the Staven owner.

Replacement and acquisition of property

Today the owners (dyke associations) are usually ready to transfer ownership of the property to the current owner in exchange for the replacement of the low Stavenzinses with 25 times the amount if the dyke moves into the 3rd line due to pre-dyking, i.e. H. if there are no more dike security interests.

No risks for financing banks

The granting of loans with pledging of the claims from the Staven law, including the buildings on the Staven property, does not appear to be riskier than the pledging of real estate.

literature

Individual evidence

  1. Introductory Act to the Civil Code
  2. Kathrin Navotki: The Slesvig Deichstavengerechtigkeit. From the 17th century to the present day: A customary superfizies on North Frisian dike properties and their development . (= Legal history series. 282). Frankfurt am Main 2004. Review by Götz Landwehr