Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 06.11.1984 2015/84 AI generated

Child support payment to guardian's account by bank manager without consent constitutes misappropriation of funds.

Case Number Vaasan HO 06.11.1984 2015/84
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court ruled in favor of the child, B, regarding a claim for misappropriation of child support funds. The bank manager unilaterally used the child support payments intended for the guardian, C, to pay off C's personal debt without the child's or guardian's consent. The court determined that this unauthorized use of funds constituted a violation of the child's property rights and the guardian's authority.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Lainsäädäntöön perustuen: Lapsilisän maksaminen huoltajan tilille on lapsen omaisuutta; pankinjohtajan lupaa kysymättä tehty velan kuittaukset ovat omankädenoikeuteen syyllistymistä.

Keywords

AI generated
child support misappropriation of funds bank manager liability guardian authority unauthorized debt payment

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Taxell: Avtal och rättsskydd, 1972, s. 244 ss.
Taxell: Avtal och rättsskydd, 1972, s. 244 ss.
Halila - Ylöstalo: Saamisen lakkaamisesta, 1971, s. 52
Halila - Ylöstalo: Saamisen lakkaamisesta, 1971, s. 52
AI generated
kko-precedent_1999_24
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; guardian's lack of authority cannot be cured by later committee approval.
kko-other_1997_1532
Supreme Court allows unilateral change of child support payment method to joint bank account under Debt Instrument Act.
appeal_1985_helsinki__744
Court dismisses claim for 81,000 marks where holder knew of poor solvency and acted negligently.
kko-precedent_1995_172
Supreme Court distinguishes embezzlement from misappropriation of trust based on whether funds were transferred outside the bank's assets.
admin_1996_lapland-county__381
Social board failed to return overpaid benefits to claimant without specific consent, violating administrative law.

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

A:n alaikäiselle lapselle B:lle oli maksettu lapsilisä usean vuoden ajan sosiaalilautakunnan kanssa tehdyn sopimuksen mukaisesti B:n huoltajan C:n tilille pankkiin. Pankinjohtajan katsottiin syyllistyneen omankädenoikeuteen hänen määrätessään lupaa edes kysymättä lapsilisän käytettäväksi C:n erääntyneen vekselivelan kuittaukseen.

Taxell: Avtal och rättsskydd, 1972, s. 244 ss.

Halila - Ylöstalo: Saamisen lakkaamisesta, 1971, s. 52

I jaosto

Lainvoimainen