Land Registry Transfer Rejection Due to Missing Commercial Register Extract
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe case concerns the rejection by the land registry office of an application to record the transfer of an agricultural business, spanning property in two cantons, under the Merger Act, which also involved the establishment of a lifelong right of residence and a right of first refusal. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that while the Merger Act permits a single public document for the transfer of land located across different cantons, the applicant failed to provide the required certified extract from the Commercial Register as mandated by the Cantonal Land Registry Ordinance to prove the transfer of ownership, rendering the registration inadmissible despite the simplified procedure offered by the Merger Act for such transfers.
Legislator-Regeste
Amtlich§ 3 Abs. 2 BeurkG; Art. 18a Abs. 1 lit. f GBV; Art. 70 Abs. 2 FusG. Für die Übertragung von Grundstücken nach FusG in verschiedenen Kantonen genügt eine einzige öffentliche Urkunde. | Beurkundungsrecht
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertZitierte Rechtsprechung
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertThis provision is explicitly mentioned in the decision's summary/heading which states the main finding regarding the sufficiency of a single public deed for cross-cantonal property transfers under the Merger Act (FusG).
This provision, requiring a certified extract from the commercial register, is cited in the reasoning that leads to the ultimate confirmation of the refusal to register the transfer.
This provision is cited in the final sentence of the substantive reasoning section to justify that the registration refusal was ultimately lawful.
This provision is cited in the final sentence of the substantive reasoning section to justify that the registration refusal was ultimately lawful.
Volltext
Rechtsprechung Luzern
Instanz: · Obergericht
Abteilung: · Justizkommission
Rechtsgebiet: · Beurkundungsrecht
Entscheiddatum: · 02.06.2005
Fallnummer: · JK 05 9.1
LGVE: · 2005 I Nr. 26
Leitsatz: · § 3 Abs. 2 BeurkG; Art. 18a Abs. 1 lit. f GBV; Art. 70 Abs. 2 FusG. Für die Übertragung von Grundstücken nach FusG in verschiedenen Kantonen genügt eine einzige öffentliche Urkunde.
Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.