f-pNo
2016-04-15 12:46:37
- #1
I can understand that from the bank’s perspective. For the wife, it’s harakiri for nothing. In the event of damage, she has to pay for the house on his behalf, even though she can never become the owner (because "he" is the one listed in the land register). If he were to die and she wanted to inherit the house, she would automatically take on the debts anyway.
Again: she has no advantages by being registered in the financing, only real significant disadvantages that could ruin her entire life.
You can somehow get out of the contract again, but that is extremely difficult. In the case of divorce and the like, the partner can also cause a lot of trouble. Even if she might eventually have some rights, she would first have to legally enforce them over many years. And all just for a foolish signature today to make the bank happy. There are plenty of people who finance entire houses alone. With a financing of €100,000 on a €400,000 property, the bank can’t possibly insist on a second person if only one is listed in the land register. It has to be possible that way...
You’re completely right. The bank has its advantage (additional security) – the wife only has obligations.
Now the potential builder can certainly try to get a contract without the wife’s signature. To what extent he can find a bank for that, I don’t know. From that point, the question then is: "How badly does one want the home? Does one bite the bullet?"
I haven’t read the entire thread: Is there a reason why the wife shouldn’t be listed in the land register (apart from the fact that she currently has no income)?