115) strange cases Written by Rainer: rainer.lehrer@yahoo.com Learn languages (via Skype): Rainer: + 36 20 549 52 97 or + 36 20 334 79 74

------------------------------

Strange cases Most of us have already rented a flat at least once and have had the experience that the lease that has been concluded cannot be taken literally or is not kept at all. There, for example, the deposit is not listed, which the property owner simply puts in his pocket. Or something is listed that is actually not there, from the storage room to drying rooms for laundry, to the garbage bin and parking lot. Even if everything was shown, the neighbours later inform you that many things are very different. One morning you bring the garbage downstairs and an energetic housemate draws your attention to it: “You don't have a garbage bin!” Here you stand with a sack of smelly eggshells or pampers in your hand and have to carry it back into your flat. You then put it in an opaque sack, walk through the park on your way to work, and put it in a public garbage bin. From your workplace, you call the proprietor, who of course denies everything. In the evening after work, you go to the garbage disposal, sign a contract, in your own name, of course, and for an additional fee the garbage bin will be delivered in front of the house of your flat. How can you get this small but annoying amount back? One of your friends is a lawyer and next to a beer in a pub, you tell him the whole thing, adding: "I had thought of sending the proprietor a copy of the banking transfer every month and deducting the sum from the rent." You feel like having fulfilled and act justly, you smile and think to yourself that you cannot be ripped off so easily. Like a know-it-all, the friend twisted his mouth sceptically, he had waited for a long time to present a sample of his art: “You have no right to do that! You are not allowed to deduct this sum from the rent. You can collect the banking transfers and when they have reached five hundred euros, you go to the court to file a complaint. The court does not deal with smaller amounts. ”In short, you do the maths: five hundred divided by six equals eighty-three point six months, around seven years." "After five years the debt becomes statute-barred" - your legal advisor added. Of course, he would notice the disappointment on your face. “An act must not interfere with the legal process of things.” For a moment you cannot find any words because it contradicts the melodious saying that was repeatedly drummed into you at school: “We are the state!” Apparently, there is a huge difference or even contradiction between “legal” and “just”. You have two options: move out, or next time don't trust anyone! Do not trust the state either, because she only wants your taxes! He had married her after three years of acquaintance, because he was convinced that she was the right one. Part of the whole truth was that he had seen her a few times in company of others, she didn't know he was there, and she had behaved very differently. She was just, like most people, a chameleon. It is possible that society would not work otherwise. Her family was actually quite normal. He was accepted. Did he like them? A tough question, but after all, he hadn't wanted to live with her relatives. Of course, he wasn't an angel himself, he had flaws, but she could have chosen another man. Or had the principle applied here that where there is no horse, you have to help yourself with a donkey? After three years they got married, then two children were born as planned, and a year later the problems started. It is difficult to determine who exactly was the culprit here. However, what followed exceeded all his expectations. As soon as he had moved out, his wife made it impossible for him to see the children. He wanted to blackmail her into not paying child support if he couldn't see the children. His lawyer advised him against it because he ran the risk of going to jail and in the divorce proceedings would then most certainly lose all opportunities to obtain a visitor right. Therefore, he paid. In the presence of lawyers from both parties, it was agreed to wait a year before the trial and only submit a request for separation, because this is cheaper and does not take much longer. The right of upbringing naturally remains with the mother. But why actually “naturally”? The law generally goes in that direction and official statistics show that eighty-five percent of verdicts favour women. Are the family judges almost all women and therefore biased? He worried about it because his wife simply did not keep this agreement and still did not let him see the children. Don't the judges see that? But the reasons are elsewhere. Unfortunately, we still live in a macho society, where a man earns more than a woman for the same work. Unfortunately, laws designed to protect women, such as maternity leave, etc. also help with this, of course. These measures naturally add to the cost of employers. It is not enough to spend eight hours in the office if you want to make a career and make good money. This is not possible for a woman with children. Therefore, if the court allows a man to have the children, he has to stop his ascending professional life. The woman, who has gambled away almost all career opportunities with the birth of children, will never earn enough to adequately support the children living with her husband. Here the state would have to provide financial aid and of course, the state tries to avoid that. After a year and a half, the divorce was finally announced and he had not seen his children for eighteen months. He said this at the hearing and was given the right to visit. His ex-wife was instructed to keep these agreements, which she promised, of course, but later failed to keep. His lawyer told him that he still had no right to withhold child support and that the only way was to file a complaint in the children's court. Three months passed before the first hearing. His ex-wife didn't show up, so a second appointment was advertised. Even then, she only shone because of her absence. At the third appointment, after a total of nine months, her subpoena contained the prospect of a fine. The amount of the sum amounted to the monthly child support that he paid, but of course, it was not awarded to him as the injured party, but flowed into the state treasury. During this trial, his ex-wife was repeatedly called on to let the father see his children. She continued to fail to meet this obligation. He hadn't been able to see his children for twenty-one months, but had filled the state's and the attorney's wallet. Incidentally, the latter was only willing to represent him if he was paid in cash and without an invoice, because the woman was obliged to be found guilty, but would not have been able to bear the negotiation and legal fees. The father didn't want to give up and went on to the next round. Again a lawsuit was filed. It was three months before the first trial, and he had not seen his children for two years. He didn't know if they would even remember him. Sometimes he went to the playground nearby, his ex-wife always made a big fuss, took the children in her arms, the kids of course had the feeling that there was a stressful situation here and started to cry. He didn't know what she had told the neighbours, but they looked at him with angry eyes as soon as they saw him. Second trial without her. Third hearing - prospect of a fine, so she appeared. His lawsuit was upheld, meaning “the right to see the children”. He asked the lawyer how he could enforce this right. "With the police" - was the short answer. When he actually appeared with the police after several attempts, the surprise was great, the mother-in-law present cursed him. The whole scene lasted ten minutes because he had to realise that it was a torture, especially for the children. The policemen had watched with uncertainty. One told him that he had already seen scenes like this a few times, the he himself was in the same situation and knew - "You have no chance!" For days he felt miserable, knew that he had actually lost. Again and again, he read the judgements of the court. “In the interest of the child” - it said. How should the story end? 1) He paid for twenty years, never saw his children again because they never came to see him. They had been taught that their father wasn't interested in them. 1a) Years later he met another woman, but since he was financially exhausted, he could not finance a new family. 1b) Women came and went in his life, but he never lived together with one again. 2) After failing to pay for a few months, he was brought to justice. 2a) He still did not pay and was sentenced to imprisonment like a criminal. 2b) He disappeared abroad before he could have been locked up. Back to list!

-----------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------

Back to Hungarian portal! Back to English portal! Back to German portal! Back to Spanish portal! Back to French portal! Back to Russian portal!