Construction financing with child support?

For the transfer of the houses to each other, the two have already contractually committed themselves anyway. That means the transfer of the multi-family house to the ex-husband takes place regardless of whether the ex-wife can "keep" the single-family house or not. He retains the multi-family house, she the single-family house - that is agreed. He can finance the multi-family house alone, she cannot finance the single-family house - at least no documents from a bank have been presented so far.

He only stayed in until the end of the fixed interest period to give her enough time to "pull herself together" and arrange financing. Now she has become a mother again and the new partner has not yet finished his studies - timing is somewhat unfavorable. The bank currently financing is the ex-husband's house bank and has already indicated that he could service the loan alone; the ex-wife does not have to be left behind. However, the ex-wife has committed to assume full liability alone from 01.02.2021. This naturally does not interest the bank, but it does concern the ex-husband, who naturally wants to be released from liability, also simply to finally clearly separate the houses and liabilities and ensure clear conditions - also financially. If the ex-wife does not manage to secure financing now, not even jointly with the new partner, she must sell the house, service the remaining loan, and with any surplus possibly remaining, she can then do what she wants, since all "rights and obligations" have been transferred to her, right?!

- the bank should not really be interested in the divorce agreement, because that is the internal relationship between the two; in the external relationship they owe the bank the amount, that is all that matters to the bank

Wrong. Without an agreement, no new financing (I am a banker myself and was in a similar situation - almost 3 years not creditworthy because of no agreement).

Overall difficult to assess. I would not grant a loan based on the woman and would not release the man from an obligation. Regarding the land registry situation, the bank doesn't care about the property. That initially has little to do with the loan agreement.

The two have already contractually committed to transferring the houses to each other.

That is initially simple - quid pro quo. The woman does not get financing, the man just remains on the land register.

If the ex-wife does not manage to get financing, not even jointly with the new spouse, she has to sell the house, pay off the remaining loan, and with any possible surplus she can then do whatever she wants, since all "rights and obligations" have been transferred to her, right?!

Yep. Or the man takes over the house and pays the woman out (if desired).

Of course, the bank is not interested in this, but the ex-husband, who naturally wants to be released from liability, simply also to finally clearly separate the properties and liabilities and to ensure clear conditions - also financially.

The ex-husband will have to face the fact that his demand to create "clear conditions" cannot be met without a high risk of loss or additional investment (payout).

The ex-husband will have to face the fact that his request to "create clear conditions" cannot be fulfilled without a high risk of loss or additional investment (payout).

He doesn't actually suffer any loss from this. All rights and obligations transfer to the ex-wife. If she sells the house, she will get more than the approximately €250,000 still outstanding. He gets nothing from that. The houses are transferred 1/1 to the other party - "as is." In the single-family house that the woman receives, part of the ex-husband's inheritance is still invested in a good five-figure amount - which he also left to her in the course of the divorce. So as far as the houses are concerned, neither owes the other anything anymore. She has committed to ensuring that he is released from the liability of the loan, then the houses are to be notarized and transferred, and that’s that. It only becomes problematic if she cannot manage the financing, then one has to "think anew."

Wrong. Without an agreement, there is no new financing at all (I am a banker myself and was in a similar situation – almost 3 years not creditworthy because there was no agreement).

Thank you for the explanation, I am interested in this because I will probably have to deal with it as a "collateral damage" next year as well.
So the divorce agreement must explicitly address the issue of the mortgage?
Does this apply to every bank (also for a refinancing?) that deals with a loan + a completed divorce?