Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 19.02.1982 662/81 AI generated

Court denies appeal when silent partnership spouses hold silent management rights in each other's firms.

Case Number Vaasan HO 19.02.1982 662/81
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against a decision refusing leave to appeal. Both spouses held silent management rights in their respective limited liability companies without being named as owners, and the one-year limitation period for commercial transactions between them did not apply. The court rejected the appeal because the underlying decision lacked sufficient grounds for further review under the relevant procedural rules.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

KKO 1982:72; When spouses hold silent management rights in each other's companies, the one-year limitation period for commercial transactions does not apply, and appeals against decisions refusing leave to appeal are dismissed if the decision lacks sufficient grounds for further review.

Keywords

AI generated
silent partnership spousal management rights commercial transaction limitation leave to appeal limited liability company court of appeal procedural grounds

Cited Legislation

AI generated
KKO 1982:72
Section 46, paragraph g of the Bankruptcy Act
AI generated
kko-precedent_1992_58
Supreme Court allows creditor's claim against former partner where creditor knew of exit before debt arose.
appeal_1985_helsinki__1224
Appeal against bankruptcy suspension dismissal is inadmissible; only original decision can be appealed.
kko-precedent_1999_103
Supreme Court dismisses appeal as partner lacks legal need to revoke bankruptcy ruling due to unresolved personal debt obligation.
kko-precedent_1993_36
Shareholder's loan claim dismissed because capital maintenance rules require valid security for shareholder loans.
appeal_1980_eastern-finland__635
Court dismissed husband's claim for unpaid dividends as work was personal sacrifice without future compensation right.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Kummallakin aviopuolisolla oli ainoana vastuunalaisena yhtiömiehenä määräysvalta omistamassaan kommandiittiyhtiössä. Puolisot olivat lisäksi äänettöminä yhtiömiehinä toistensa yhtiöissä.

Yhtiöiden väliseen kauppaan ei sovellettu konkurssisäännön 46 §:n g kohdassa mainittua yhden vuoden määräaikaa.

KKO:n ratkaisu:

Päätös 22.7.1982: ei valituslupaa