Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Tesis ini membahas mengenai pembuatan akta wasiat oleh notaris seharusnya memperhatikan ketentuan asas legitime portie yang berlaku sebagai dasar dalam pembuatan akta wasiat tersebut. Hal ini karena setiap ahli waris harus menerima bagian mereka sesuai dengan ketentuan perundang-undangan tanpa ada yang merasa dirugikan sehingga dapat memberikan kepastian bagi para ahli waris dan menghindarkan dampak tuntutan hukum yang dapat timbul dikemudian hari. Permasalahan dalam tesis ini adalah implikasi hukum terhadap bagian mutlak ahli waris legitimaris dari adanya suatu akta wasiat yang dibuat berdasarkan akta kesepakatan bersama dimana isinya melanggar bagian mutlak (legitieme portie) dan notaris yang membuat akta wasiat tersebut dinyatakan melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah doktrinal dengan menggunakan data sekunder berupa studi kepustakaan dan pendekatan kualitatif. Hasil penelitian ini mengungkapkan bahwa akta wasiat yang isinya melanggar bagian mutlak (legitime portie) ahli waris legitimaris tidak serta merta langsung batal atau batal demi hukum, melainkan dapat diajukan gugatan dari ahli waris untuk menuntut bagian mutlaknya sehingga akta wasiat tersebut menjadi tidak dapat dilaksanakan dan bagian mutlak ahli waris legitimaris yang terlanggar akan dikembalikan sesuai dengan besarnya bagian mutlak yang dimiliki oleh ahli waris legitimaris yang menuntut tersebut sedangkan sisanya akan diberikan kepada ahli waris yang sesuai dengan akta wasiat tersebut. Selain itu, dalam pembuatan akta wasiat tersebut, Notaris tidak terbukti telah melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum karena pembuatan akta wasiat tersebut telah memenuhi syarat formil dan syarat materiil sahnya suatu akta sehingga notaris tidak dapat dimintakan pertanggungjawaban mengenai gugatan tersebut. ......This thesis discusses the making of a will by a notary who should pay attention to the provisions of the legitime portie principle that apply as the basis for making the will. This is because each heir must receive their share in accordance with statutory provisions without anyone feeling disadvantaged so as to provide certainty for the heirs and avoid the impact of lawsuits that may arise in the future. The problem in this thesis is the legal implications for the absolute part of the legitimacy of the heirs from the existence of a will made based on a deed of mutual agreement where the contents violate the absolute part (legitieme portie) and the notary who made the will is declared to have committed an unlawful act. The research method used is doctrinal by using secondary data in the form of literature studies and qualitative approaches. The results of this study reveal that wills whose contents violate the absolute part (legitime portie) of legitimacy heirs are not immediately null and void, but a lawsuit can be filed from the heirs to demand their absolute part so that the will becomes unenforceable and part absolute legitimacy heirs who are violated will be returned in accordance with the size of the absolute share owned by the legitimacy heirs who claim it while the rest will be given to the heirs in accordance with the deed of will. In addition, in making the will, the Notary was not proven to have committed an unlawful act because the making of the will had fulfilled the formal and material requirements for the validity of a deed so that the notary could not be held responsible for the lawsuit.

Abstrak :
[Perjanjian kerjasama tentang penanggungan utang ini merupakan dasar dari penjaminan pemberian kredit yang diberikan oleh Bank Rakyat Indonesia dan juga menjadi dasar bagi Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia agar dapat bertindak sebagai penanggung dalam penjaminan kredit yang diberikan oleh Bank rakyat Indonesia. Analisis ini akan dilakukan dengan menggunakan ketentuan penanggungan utang dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata, dimana akan dilihat mengenai keberlakuan dari ketentuan penanggungan utang dalam perjanjian kerjasama penanggungan utang antara Bank Rakyat Indonesia dengan Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. Dalam Buku III KUHPerdata memiliki asas kebebasan berkontrak, dimana dengan adanya asas ini maka para pihak bebas menentukan isi dari perjanjian yang ingin dibuatnya selama tidak bertentangan dengan hukum, kepatutan dan norma yang berlaku. Namun, tidak banyak yang mengetahui keberadaan perjanjian kerjasama penjaminan kredit sehingga tidak diketahui mengenai isi dari perjanjian tersebut telah sesuai atau tidak bertentangan dengan ketentuan dalam KUHPerdata dan Peraturan lain yang berlaku. Adapun terdapat perbedaan mendasar antara perjanjian kerjasama penanggungan utang dengan ketentuan dalam KUHPerdata yaitu pada pihak yang menjadi penanggung hanya boleh Perusahaan Penjaminan yang telah membuat MoU dengan Kementerian Keuangan seperti Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. Dengan demikian analisis ini diperlukan agar dapat menjadi acuan hukum bagi usaha-usaha yang hendak melakukan peminjaman kredit melalui penjaminan pemberian kredit, sehingga mereka mengetahui ketentuan yang berlaku. ......A cooperation agreement of debt guarantee is the basis of the guarantee credit granted by Bank Rakyat Indonesia and also the basis for Perum Jaminan kredit Indonesia in order to act as a guarantor in a debt guarantee given by Bank Rakyat Indonesia. This analysis will be done using debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Code of Civil Law, which will be seen on the enforceability of the debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Code of Civil Law in the agreement about the guarantee of debt between Bank Rakyat Indonesia with Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. In Book III of the Civil Code, which has the principle of freedom of contract, where the presence of this principle made the parties are free to determine the contents of the agreements as long as its content did not violate the law, propriety and norms. However, not many are aware of the existence of credit guarantee cooperation agreement, which is the basis of guaranteed debt lending, is not known about the contents of the agreement and of course so many people does not know if the content of its agreement match with the provisions of the Civil Code and other applicable regulation. As there is a fundamental difference between debt guarantee agreement and debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Civil Code, which is the parties that allowed to be the guarantor are the Company that has made a MoU agreement with the Ministry of Finance such as Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. Thus this analysis is required in order to become the legal reference for businesses that want to borrow credit through the provision of credit guarantees, so that they know the provisions in force.;A cooperation agreement of debt guarantee is the basis of the guarantee credit granted by Bank Rakyat Indonesia and also the basis for Perum Jaminan kredit Indonesia in order to act as a guarantor in a debt guarantee given by Bank Rakyat Indonesia. This analysis will be done using debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Code of Civil Law, which will be seen on the enforceability of the debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Code of Civil Law in the agreement about the guarantee of debt between Bank Rakyat Indonesia with Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. In Book III of the Civil Code, which has the principle of freedom of contract, where the presence of this principle made the parties are free to determine the contents of the agreements as long as its content did not violate the law, propriety and norms. However, not many are aware of the existence of credit guarantee cooperation agreement, which is the basis of guaranteed debt lending, is not known about the contents of the agreement and of course so many people does not know if the content of its agreement match with the provisions of the Civil Code and other applicable regulation. As there is a fundamental difference between debt guarantee agreement and debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Civil Code, which is the parties that allowed to be the guarantor are the Company that has made a MoU agreement with the Ministry of Finance such as Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. Thus this analysis is required in order to become the legal reference for businesses that want to borrow credit through the provision of credit guarantees, so that they know the provisions in force., A cooperation agreement of debt guarantee is the basis of the guarantee credit granted by Bank Rakyat Indonesia and also the basis for Perum Jaminan kredit Indonesia in order to act as a guarantor in a debt guarantee given by Bank Rakyat Indonesia. This analysis will be done using debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Code of Civil Law, which will be seen on the enforceability of the debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Code of Civil Law in the agreement about the guarantee of debt between Bank Rakyat Indonesia with Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. In Book III of the Civil Code, which has the principle of freedom of contract, where the presence of this principle made the parties are free to determine the contents of the agreements as long as its content did not violate the law, propriety and norms. However, not many are aware of the existence of credit guarantee cooperation agreement, which is the basis of guaranteed debt lending, is not known about the contents of the agreement and of course so many people does not know if the content of its agreement match with the provisions of the Civil Code and other applicable regulation. As there is a fundamental difference between debt guarantee agreement and debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Civil Code, which is the parties that allowed to be the guarantor are the Company that has made a MoU agreement with the Ministry of Finance such as Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. Thus this analysis is required in order to become the legal reference for businesses that want to borrow credit through the provision of credit guarantees, so that they know the provisions in force.]