Construction Financing - Financing Models for Unmarried Couples

Thank you for your assessment. Why does it become simpler with marriage? I assume it's because a prenuptial agreement is mandatory in this constellation anyway?

Why is a prenuptial agreement mandatory there?
Everything acquired before the marriage remains separate property.
A marriage would, in terms of the community of accrued gains, clearly establish that Partner B acquires shares in the house if Partner B is already paying something for it.

I know two unmarried homeowners, but they then concluded correspondingly complex contracts to secure themselves.

The house belongs to whoever is registered in the land register, regardless of who has paid off the loan. If you are married, the other person has a claim to the equalization of accrued gains and thus a share of the installments paid. The question is whether he can obtain the financing alone or if she has to co-sign. That means point 1 can only occur if both are listed in the land register without any further agreement. Point 2 can occur if not married. Point 3 can occur if the bank is not satisfied with one borrower.

Exactly, the transfer of ownership between the partners or an appropriate compensation would need to be arranged. The division of value increases must then be clarified, as well as how this works in the event of separation, etc. At least not trivial.

Why is a prenuptial agreement mandatory? Everything acquired before the marriage remains separate property. A marriage under the community of accrued gains would precisely clarify that Partner B acquires shares in the house if Partner B already pays something for it. I know two unmarried homeowners, but they have then concluded correspondingly complex contracts to protect themselves.

A prenuptial agreement is not necessarily mandatory. But with very unequal financial situations, one should at least consider what happens if one does not regulate it contractually — and whether that is acceptable. Especially with residential property, which is difficult to divide.

How are your income situations? Are children planned that might complicate things?

Basically, the rule should be that if both pay the loan, both should also be owners. Otherwise, personally, I would not agree as the smaller partner to someone else paying off the house (and also paying out their relatives). Joint ownership is certainly unpleasant if the relationship breaks down. That should be clarified and fixed in advance, even if it is uncomfortable.

Otherwise, it is not a crime if the economically stronger partner finances and owns it alone and takes a (rather symbolic) rent from the weaker partner. This circumvents all problems with separation, etc. However, it naturally requires that it is financially manageable alone and that the weaker partner actually only contributes an amount that corresponds at most to the usual rent share. Otherwise, it turns into wealth accumulation for the partner and then we are back to the first paragraph.

We decided on the solution that I finance and own everything alone. The main reasons for this were the unilateral liquid equity and unequal income.

...
and takes a (rather symbolic) rent from the weaker partner.
...

However, in my opinion, the word "rent" should not appear anywhere (transfer etc.). Not that taxes have to be paid on it.

Off to the experienced notary. Otherwise, only Partner 1 shall bear everything. But really everything