Facts
The appellant (father) was ordered by decision of the Laufenburg District Court presidency of 6 March 2018 to pay child maintenance to the child's mother of between Fr. 550.-- and Fr. 2'715.-- per month for his child (born 2015) until the child reaches majority. The reasoned decision was served on him on 12 March 2018.
On 15 April 2018 the appellant filed an appeal with the Obergericht of the Canton of Aargau. His requests for relief sought a finding of procedural errors, recalculation of the actual care maintenance following a final decision on personal contact, contesting the amount of the calculated maintenance by offsetting payments already made (rent payments, assumption of mortgage debts), and the granting of an opportunity for a detailed statement and supplementary evidence. He did not name a specific amount.
By decision of 30 October 2018 (ZVE.2018.27), the Obergericht declined to hear the appeal due to the lack of quantification.
The appellant then brought a civil law appeal to the Federal Supreme Court on 27 December 2018, requesting that the matter be remitted to the lower court for proceedings in accordance with Art. 56 CPC and for an instruction to submit his requests. He complained of a violation of Art. 56 and Art. 296 CPC (official maxim, investigation principle, duty to ask questions). The Federal Supreme Court did not obtain any responses.
Issue in dispute: Whether the Obergericht should have entered into the substance of an unquantified appeal in child maintenance proceedings, or whether, in light of the investigation principle or the judicial duty to ask questions (Art. 56 CPC), it should have invited clarification and quantification.
Considerations
A request for relief must be sufficiently specific so that, if granted, it can be adopted unchanged as the judgment. Appeal requests seeking payment of money must therefore be quantified. This also follows from Art. 315 para. 1 CPC (suspension of res judicata and enforceability to the extent of the requests) and from Arts. 312 and 313 et seq. CPC, so that the opposing party can defend itself and decide on an incidental appeal.
The application of the official maxim in the area of child maintenance does not alter the requirement for quantified requests. Quantified requests are also required in appeal proceedings concerning child maintenance.
The investigation principle concerns only the gathering of procedural material, not the initiation or termination of proceedings or the formulation of the request for relief. Nor does it impose a duty on the court to advise parties on procedural questions. The appellant therefore cannot derive anything in his favour from the investigation principle.
It remained to be examined whether the court, independently of the investigation principle, was obliged under Art. 56 CPC to point out the missing quantified request. The judicial duty to ask questions serves to prevent a party from losing its rights due to inexperience, but not to compensate for procedural negligence. Where…