Buying a house but the seller requires the right of residence - How to proceed?

Right of residence is nonsense



Lease agreement too



That's how it is.
The date of handover is defined in the notary contract. Also the transfer of money.
That can also vary.
Either the seller arranges bridge financing for his new construction project himself or there is a lower sale price for earlier cash flow.
For win-win deals, you have to sit down together at a table and each calculate the advantages for themselves.
This is not a rare case, and those who do not trust remain alone.

I agree with you.
The fact is, the seller needs the money for the new construction right at the beginning. That is part of the initial situation and also a requirement for all interested parties. The rest is a matter of agreement. And to go into these talks prepared, I wanted to get information.
Even with a lower sale price, I remain burdened with double costs of rent and loan. Moreover, there are several interested parties; we will not be the only ones with an offer. Therefore, I cannot demand a huge reduction in the purchase price.

The fact is, the seller needs the money for the new construction right at the beginning.

He wants a bit more than in a normal sale, and for that he has to accommodate you. Otherwise, he would have to pay rent elsewhere if he had to live somewhere in between.

Even with a lower sale price, I get stuck with the double burden of rent and mortgage.

Yes, but that balances out. You do get the house cheaper.

There are also several interested parties, we will not be the only ones with an offer.

That's always the case. At least one should assume that, and it’s not up for discussion "Help, I want to buy a house, but there are other interested parties too."

I can’t demand a huge reduction in the purchase price

Exactly, according to the rent he would have to pay elsewhere.

If he himself is stubborn and grants himself most of the advantages, then he is not your business partner. Keep looking!

Yes, but that balances out. You get the house cheaper.

That is true, but if I understand correctly, over the entire term of the loan. Unfortunately, that doesn't help us much at first.

Exactly, corresponding to the rent he would have to pay elsewhere.

If he is stubborn himself and claims most of the advantages, then it is not your business case

I agree with you there as well. Sometimes the only question then is how much longer to keep searching. Because in the coming years, the market will continue to favor the sellers.

That is true, but if I understand correctly, it applies to the total duration of the loan. Unfortunately, that doesn't help us much at first.

I agree with you on that. Sometimes the question then is how long to continue searching. Because in the coming years, the market will continue to favor the sellers.

Why should the market favor the seller? Anyone who sells in 2 years will also pay correspondingly more for the new purchase in 2 years.
I rather have the feeling that it is coming to an end, currently unhealthy loan contracts are being made without equity.
The crash will come and then only those with healthy contracts will survive.

The crash will come, and then only those with healthy contracts will survive.

We have a different situation than in the last real estate bubble in the USA. As long as the housing shortage continues (migration rate to Germany higher than the rate of new housing construction), contracts without equity are also covered by the continuously rising price of the encumbered property. As long as the economy keeps booming, there will also be buyers. The "crash" will only happen when the next recession comes, unemployment rises, etc., and suddenly no buyers can be found for the overpriced dumps. But this crash will be so severe that in the end even the property owners will be the winners, while savers are left empty-handed.

And something is already popping on the stock market....