No entitlement to procedural or litigation cost assistance with an owned car of significant asset value
The Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg clarified in a decision dated December 16, 2020 (Case No. 13 UF 134/20) the conditions for granting procedural and litigation cost assistance when own assets are present. In the specific case, the request for procedural cost assistance (VKH) was denied to a party because she owned a car valued at approximately 15,000 EUR. This ruling invites a closer examination of the standards for considering own assets when granting support for court costs.
Conditions for granting procedural and litigation cost assistance
Legal basis
According to §§ 76 FamFG, 114, 115 ZPO, a party may be granted procedural or litigation cost assistance if they are needy, i.e. unable to cover the costs of litigation fully or partially, or only in installments, or only under significant restriction of necessary subsistence. Neediness is a prerequisite insofar as (possibly taking into account exemptions) no reasonable utilization of existing assets is possible and necessary.
Examination of asset situation
In practice, this means that assets—including securities, savings, real estate, and motor vehicles—must be included in the needs assessment. Only the so-called protected assets, certain asset components that must remain with the applicant because they are necessary for an adequate livelihood, are excluded.
Case reference: significance of the vehicle as an asset
Relevant facts
In the decided case, the applicant owned a car whose value after deducting a remaining loan balance was approximately 15,000 EUR. The Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg stated in its ruling that a vehicle in this price range generally does not constitute “protected assets” unless the use of the car is undeniably necessary—for example, proven by professional or health-related reasons. This was not evident in the present case. Therefore, procedural and litigation cost assistance was denied.
Individual case differentiation
Case law does acknowledge that mobility via a car can partially belong to social participation. However, it applies: only insofar as a car is necessary for livelihood—such as for performing professional duties, caring for relatives requiring nursing care, or in the absence of sufficient public transport connections—does a protection as protected assets exist. Vehicles of particularly high value are generally not covered. Thus, the circumstances of each individual case and the suitability of the vehicle concerning the applicant’s livelihood are decisive.
Reasonableness of asset utilization
The court holds that, as a rule, it is reasonable to expect the applicant to use a non-essential, high-value car to finance court costs, especially if its sale or utilization does not cause undue hardship. In this respect, no regulations are generally violated by prioritizing the use of available assets to conserve public funds. The court emphasizes that the state’s interest in economical use of funds according to § 115 para. 2 ZPO is paramount.
Importance for applicants and judicial practice
Impact of the decision
The decision of the Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg confirms existing practice in many courts and provides clear guidance to parties: those who possess valuable assets—such as an expensive car—must expect that the realizability of these assets in the context of the VKH examination excludes or at least reduces entitlement. This applies regardless of whether the vehicle is considered “normal” within the scope of earned living standards, so long as it is not strictly necessary for livelihood.
Aspects to consider in proceedings
It is important for applicants to disclose all relevant information about their assets when applying and to present circumstances showing why retention of the vehicle is strictly necessary in exceptional cases. Mere self-assessment that a car is essential for livelihood is not sufficient.
Legal notes and transparency
It should be noted that court decisions are always tailored to specific individual cases. Differing facts—for example, proven necessity of a particular vehicle or extraordinary personal circumstances—may lead to different legal assessments. Additionally, the legal situation may change due to subsequent decisions or legislative amendments.
Quellenhinweis: Die dargestellten rechtlichen Wertungen beruhen auf der Entscheidung des Oberlandesgerichts Brandenburg (Beschluss vom 16.12.2020, Az. 13 UF 134/20), Stand Juni 2024. Etwaige Verfahren und damit zusammenhängende Streitfragen sind gegebenenfalls noch nicht endgültig abgeschlossen; die Unschuldsvermutung bleibt grundsätzlich gewahrt.
Kontaktaufnahme bei weitergehendem Beratungsbedarf
Die Bewertung der individuellen Vermögenssituation im Zusammenhang mit der Bewilligung von Verfahrens- oder Prozesskostenhilfe kann zahlreiche Herausforderungen und Besonderheiten umfassen. Bei spezifischen Fragestellungen zu diesem Themenkreis steht Ihnen das Team von MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte gerne als Ansprechpartner zur Verfügung.
