Baukindergeld - Interpretation of the new funding guidelines

You are thinking too short-sightedly, to be eligible for KfW a family with children must buy! So why should a son-in-law be able to buy from the parents-in-law if there is a daughter.

The plot of land should not be subsidized if the property "passes for free" to the person by way of a gift or inheritance.

But that would only be the case with transfer to one's own children.

In the event of death, the property passes to one's own child. The spouse is not considered, except for a possible accrued gains claim.

The spouse therefore has no access to the property in the case of a gift or death. He is not treated as a relative in gift and inheritance law.

He is basically initially a "stranger."

Why should he then suddenly be treated like a first-degree relative in a purchase?

It is obvious that many are now selling their properties to their children since they would get them anyway at some point, and this somewhat contradicts the purpose of the funding.

But the threshold to sell one’s own house to a "non-related" daughter-in-law, who might then possibly get divorced, is probably quite high for most parents.

Moreover, other regulations apply regarding tax implications in such a sale.

From a family law perspective, only the daughter-in-law becomes the owner. In that respect, the case for the own son is almost even worse because he practically no longer receives his possible inheritance.

I will simply wait for the written response from the KfW and can then report back.

Real estate should not be subsidized if the property is transferred "for free" to the person by way of a gift or inheritance.

However, this would only be the case when transferring to one's own children.

In the event of death, the property passes to one's own child. The spouse is not considered, except for a possible increase in accrued gains.

Therefore, the spouse has no access to the property in case of gift or death. He or she is not treated like a relative under gift or inheritance law.

Essentially, he or she is initially a "stranger."

Why should he or she suddenly be treated like a first-degree relative in the case of a purchase?

§1931 Building Code:
(1) The surviving spouse of the decedent is entitled as a statutory heir to one quarter of the inheritance alongside relatives of the first degree, and to one half alongside relatives of the second degree or grandparents. If descendants of grandparents meet with grandparents, the spouse also receives from the other half the share that according to § 1926 would fall to the descendants.
(2) If there are neither relatives of the first nor the second degree nor grandparents, the surviving spouse receives the entire inheritance.
(3) The provision of § 1371 remains unaffected.
(4) If at the time of death there was separation of property and one or two children of the decedent are called as statutory heirs alongside the surviving spouse, the surviving spouse and each child inherit in equal shares; § 1924 paragraph 3 also applies in this case.

I assume that they will correct it at short notice and change the "zwischen" to a "von" and then the matter will be settled.

What makes the whole thing even more amusing:

According to the guidelines for the "Bayerische Baukindergeld Plus" and the "bayerische Eigenheimzulage," funding is possible when purchased by the daughter-in-law/son-in-law.

Explicitly not eligible for funding is only the acquisition by first-degree relatives or acquisition by "children."

The funny thing about it is that the Bayerische Baukindergeld Plus requires a positive approval notice from the KfW.... which you then obviously don't get.

Yes, and? They are 2 funding pools and have nothing to do with each other.

Since there is no legal entitlement to funding, the legal analysis is moot. You may find it stupid, unfair, or whatever, but it will not change anything. Buy your house and submit the applications. Maybe it will work out, or maybe not. Do not count on the money.

Well, it is clearly what is meant, so splitting hairs is pointless. The regulation absolutely makes sense. If you are already getting a property from relatives at a preferential price, you don't also need state funding.