The parties must clearly state that they do not have a claim regarding the goods regime.
While the Court of Cassation accepts that expressions such as “we have no rights or receivables left”, “we have no material and moral claims”, do not cover the liquidation of the property regime, it accepts the statements such as “I do not have a claim for property”, “There is no dispute between us regarding the division of property” as the liquidation of the property regime. .
Decision of the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, dated 24.02.2010, numbered 2-96 E, 106 K. (in-court confession and conclusive evidence)
I waive my claim for goods, including real estate.
I do not have any requests regarding the sharing of goods and goods, it does not cover the goods regime.
The statement that I have no material and moral demands does not mean that they have liquidated the property regime.
The statement that they do not have a disagreement on this issue, as they share the goods and household goods purchased during the continuation of the marriage union, does not prevent the liquidation.
The statement that they declare that they will be separated in terms of property and marriage law does not prevent liquidation. The statement that we have no rights or receivables from each other does not include contribution and participation receivables. We do not claim any material or moral compensation from each other. The statements that we have shared the household goods between us do not cover the property regime.
With the latest HGK decision, the statement that the parties have no claims for goods also includes the liquidation of the goods regime.
The term “goods” in the sentence “I do not have a demand for goods” also includes the liquidation of the goods regime.
There is no demand for goods and receivables from each other, which also includes the liquidation of the goods regime.
The terms goods and goods cover all movable and immovable.
The term property also includes real estate.
