Ninik Darmini
Hukum Perdata, Program Studi Diploma 3 Hukum Sekolah Vokasi Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Kepemilikan Bersama sebagai Jaminan Hutang (Potensi Masalah dan Jalan Keluarnya) Darmini, Ninik
Jurnal Magister Hukum Udayana (Udayana Master Law Journal) Vol 14 No 1 (2025)
Publisher : University of Udayana

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24843/JMHU.2025.v14.i01.p09

Abstract

This normative-descriptive research aims to understand and to analyse the validity of join ownership used as a collateral, as well as the potential conflict arising and the means to minimise it. This research found that such join of ownership is valid as long as it fulfills the consensus between the leanor and the guarantor. In this case, legal capacity includes the joint property owners’ authority to act, which is related to the proof of ownership: is it registered on behalf of one or part of the owners, or all of the owners. The validity relates to a certain object that is usually proven by ownership certificate and does not violate the statutory laws and unwritten laws. The conflict that potentially arise is lawsuit from the other owner(s) in case the encumbrance was conducted without their knowledge and/or permission. Therefore, join property must be encumbranced by all of the owners – if the asset is registered on behalf of those owners – or should be with the other owner(s)’ permission – if the asset is registered on behalf of an owner or part of the owners. It is normatively possible that join property registration mentions all of the right holders such as husband and wife, heirs, or all right holders in the other join ownerships. Penelitian normatif-deskriptif ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis keabsahan kepemilikan bersama yang digunakan sebagai jaminan utang, beserta potensi sengketa yang mungkin timbul dan bagaimana cara untuk meminimalkan potensi tersebut. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa kepemilikan bersama tersebut sah sepanjang memenuhi kesepakatan antara pemberi dan penerima jaminan. Dalam hal ini, kecakapan hukum termasuk kewenangan para pemilik harta bersama untuk bertindak, yang mana berkaitan dengan bukti kepemilikan: apakah harta tersebut terdaftar atas nama salah satu atau sebagian pemilik, atau seluruh pemilik. Keabsahan ini berkaitan dengan objek kepemilikan yang sudah tertentu yang biasanya dibuktikan dengan sertipikat kepemilikan, serta tidak melanggar ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan maupun norma tidak tertulis. Adapun potensi sengketa yang mungkin timbul adalah gugatan dari pemilik lainnya, dalam hal pembebanan jaminan dilakukan tanpa sepengetahuan dan/atau izin dari pemilik tersebut. oleh karena itu, harta bersama mestinya dibebankan jaminan oleh seluruh pemilik – jika terdaftar atas nama seluruh pemilik – atau dengan izin pemilik lainnya – jika terdaftar atas nama salah satu atau sebagian pemilik. Secara normatif dimungkinkan bahwa pendaftaran harta bersama mencantumkan nama semua pemilik hak seperti suami-isteri, semua ahli waris, atau semua pemilik hak dalam kepemilikan bersama lainnya.
The Maatschap Paradox: Unpacking the Determinants of Slow Innovation Adoption among Indonesian Notaries Yuwanasari, Rosita; Kutanegara, Pande Made; Susilastuti, Dewi Haryani; Darmini, Ninik
Journal of World Science Vol. 4 No. 10 (2025): Journal of World Science
Publisher : Riviera Publishing

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.58344/jws.v4i10.1533

Abstract

The dominant practice of independent notaries in Indonesia is systematically vulnerable, causing service disruptions and losses for clients when a notary is unable to perform their duties. Although a superior alternative model, namely civil partnerships (maatschap), has a legal basis, its adoption rate is very low. This failure to innovate creates a market gap that is exploited by illegal actors and erodes public trust. Therefore, through a qualitative approach with a multi-site case study design, this article aims to uncover the root causes of this paradox and formulate policy recommendations to encourage professional transformation. The overall results of the study show that strong resistance to the adoption of maatschap is caused by a complex interaction between high-risk perceptions (especially loss of autonomy), a significant deficit of trust among peers, and the pressure of individualistic professional cultural norms. Four main determinants were identified as barriers: (1) ambiguous and unsupportive regulations, creating legal uncertainty; (2) low capacity for collaboration due to difficulties in building trust and a shared vision; (3) the complexity of technology management and integration; and (4) the failure of the socialisation process in building legitimacy and instilling new norms within the professional community.