
GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – grprainer.com/en conclude: In its ruling of April 11, 2013 (File number: II-4 UF 232/12), the Superior Court [Oberlandesgericht / OLG] of Hamm decided that unilaterally incriminating provisions in divorce settlements, such as waiving the right of pension equalization in such a settlement, is to fall under the subject of being contrary to common practice only when there is good cause for assuming that such a settlement is based on interfering with subjective contractual parity. The unilateral distribution of burdens in a divorce settlement alone is said to be insufficient for assuming it to be contrary to common practice. It is necessary to take the overall individual situation of the parties into account when a settlement is concluded. A unilaterally incriminating provision is said to allow the assumption of a reprehensible attitude only if the unbalanced contents of the settlement point to a unilateral dominance of the favoured spouse based on the uneven negotiating positions of the spouses.