ypg
2018-04-06 21:53:30
- #1
Changing the land register after the wedding is definitely cheaper than before...
Do it... only very few actually do it... even though they intended to.
Changing the land register after the wedding is definitely cheaper than before...
Oh I see )))Do... do only very few... although they intended to.
Not always that simple. We have the same problem too: we’re not married yet and want to build on my parents’ property. My parents' house is still on it, my mother has a lifelong usufruct right, but the property and house were transferred to me and my brother a long time ago. However, my parents have already arranged the inheritance for the next generation:
Spouses are not entitled to inherit; if one of the siblings dies, the inheritance share goes to the other.
If there are children, they inherit. If one of us remains childless (which I have already fulfilled), my share goes to my brother’s children after my death.
Furthermore, my brother bought a small strip of land that we are now allowed to build on (otherwise the additional house wouldn’t have worked either).
So, fact is: I’m building with my boyfriend (yes, we will get married to at least somewhat simplify this already very complicated matter) on land that belongs to me and my brother. He himself has no chance of being entered in the land register, at least not for the share that our parents bequeathed to us. And, one has to be clear about this: the house always belongs to whoever is registered in the land register. No matter who paid what.
We are also not completely sure how we want to do it yet. So far it will probably come down to a condominium community where my boyfriend will own a small share of the land (of the part that belongs to my brother, that is possible) and we will own different shares. Both houses will be separate property with special rights of use (our parents’ house for my brother and me; mother keeps her usufruct right; new building for my boyfriend and me). We still have to negotiate that exactly with the notary.
In principle, I could also do the whole thing alone. I own the land, I have equity, he doesn’t. Then he just pays 50% of the local rent and that’s it.
But I don’t want that. If I die, my partner would simply be alone. If we do nothing, the house belongs to the landowners, i.e. me and my brother. If I die, my brother gets it. My boyfriend would, in the worst case, be left out on the street. Even if we are married, my parents stipulated that the spouse is not entitled to inherit.
If my brother dies, on the other hand, I could have quite some trouble with the guardianship court, which then takes care of his three children’s concerns. Suppose he has an accident together with his wife, the three children are orphans, then the guardianship court would act in the interests of the children and possibly demand the inheritance share. I would have to pay (and probably wouldn’t be able to). Arguments like: they will inherit it anyway, are useless. If the guardianship court considers that the children need the money NOW, then they will demand it now. So that must be secured as well.
So something like this really always has to be clarified well from all sides, and the assumption that the worst case will only happen with a very low probability and you don’t have to reckon with it, I consider dangerous. If you hit 0.2%, it won’t get better when you can say: but that was really unlikely!
My boyfriend has no equity, so his share will correspond to half of the amount to be financed, but he will be listed in the land register.
Would that perhaps be a possibility? Setting shares by percentage? I can understand that people want to make it clear that one invested far more than the other (not unimportant in the event of a breakup). But not putting him or her in the land register at all is not a solution either. In case of death, the partner not listed in the land register is in a pretty bad position. I wouldn’t want that for my boyfriend.