Pie\u013caujam, ka kreditors run\u0101 par Civillikuma 1927. pantu, jo saska\u0146\u0101 ar to – manta atz\u012bstama par d\u0101vin\u0101tu tikai tikt\u0101l, cikt\u0101l no t\u0101s atvilkti d\u0101vin\u0101t\u0101ja par\u0101di. Taj\u0101 gad\u012bjuma, kad d\u0101vin\u0101t\u0101js nesp\u0113j samaks\u0101t par\u0101dus, kuri vi\u0146am biju\u0161i d\u0101vin\u0101\u0161anas laik\u0101, nevien vi\u0146a kreditori var pras\u012bt sev apmierin\u0101jumu no vi\u0146a d\u0101vanas, bet ar\u012b vi\u0146\u0161 pats var pras\u012bt no apd\u0101vin\u0101t\u0101, lai no vi\u0146a d\u0101vin\u0101t\u0101s mantas dod atpaka\u013c \u0161o par\u0101du samaksai vajadz\u012bgo da\u013cu. Noruna starp d\u0101vin\u0101t\u0101ju un apd\u0101vin\u0101to par to, ka p\u0113d\u0113jais neatbild par pirm\u0101 par\u0101diem, ir sp\u0113k\u0101 pret kreditoriem tikai tad, ja vi\u0146i tai piekritu\u0161i.<\/p>\n\n
Tom\u0113r, \u0161is pants ir iek\u013cauts sada\u013c\u0101 \u201cVisas mantas d\u0101vin\u0101jums\u201d pie sevi\u0161\u0137ajiem d\u0101vin\u0101juma veidiem, un daudzi ties\u012bbu jom\u0101 str\u0101d\u0101jo\u0161ie \u0161o Civillikuma 1927.pantu interpret\u0113 sav\u0101d\u0101k, no k\u0101 ir ar\u012b radies viedoklis, ka viena dz\u012bvok\u013ca d\u0101vin\u0101juma gad\u012bjum\u0101 kreditoram tom\u0113r nav ties\u012bbas v\u0113rsties pret apd\u0101vin\u0101to personu, jo d\u0101vin\u0101t\u0101jam d\u0101vin\u0101\u0161anas br\u012bd\u012b var b\u016bt gan zin\u0101mi, gan nezin\u0101mi vai ap\u0161aub\u0101mi par\u0101di. Un no par\u0101diem nevar atbr\u012bvoties, aizd\u0101vinot visu mantu. T\u0101 k\u0101 J\u016bs ned\u0101vin\u0101j\u0101t savai radiniecei visu savu mantu, bet gan tikai dz\u012bvokli, tad kreditors nevarot atsaukties uz 1927.pantu. Tom\u0113r, tas ir tikai viedoklis un \u0161\u012b jaut\u0101juma gal\u012bga izlem\u0161ana paliek tiesas kompetenc\u0113.\n\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","yoast_head":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n