Facts
The appellant A.A. (born 1963) was married to B.A. (born 1956). The marriage was divorced in 2008, with the divorce settlement concluded by the parties being approved. In this, A.A. had committed to pay maintenance for his wife and children.
On July 24, 2013, A.A. filed a claim with the District Court of Muri for modification of the divorce judgment. He requested the complete revocation of his maintenance obligation towards B.A. and justified his modification claim with an alleged gift of 4 million Swiss francs paid to B.A. after the conclusion of the divorce agreement and with the allegation that B.A. had earned a higher income after the divorce than assumed in the divorce judgment.
The District Court upheld the modification claim on April 15, 2015. In upholding B.A.'s appeal, the High Court of the Canton of Aargau dismissed the modification claim on November 18, 2015. By judgment of November 24, 2016, the Federal Supreme Court upheld one of the two appeal points raised by A.A. and referred the case back to the High Court for supplementation of the evidentiary proceedings with regard to B.A.'s income situation.
The High Court then partially upheld the appeal in a decision dated May 17, 2017. It essentially held that A.A. could reduce his maintenance payments if B.A.'s actual net income exceeded the maximum amount stated in the divorce settlement.
On September 24, 2015, A.A. filed another modification claim, again demanding that he no longer owed any maintenance to B.A. He justified his claim with his permanently deteriorated income situation in the meantime. By decision of October 23, 2018, the District Court of Muri dismissed this claim.
Considerations
The High Court considered that, in accordance with the provisions on new facts, new facts must be presented in the appeal proceedings. The facts asserted in the second modification claim (unemployment, hopelessness of the job search, deterioration of his income situation) had arisen before the deadline for new facts in the appeal proceedings and therefore had to be presented in the appeal proceedings.
The Federal Supreme Court considered that…