House heavily in debt, 50:50 shares - separation

It is not about judging the behavior of those affected, but merely about showing a viable way out, if there is one. Because who writes, remains. And now both have signed. What is, is.

1. Selling the entire house: completely unprofitable, because the house could not be sold at a price that would allow breaking even. (prepayment penalties, not an ultra deluxe premium location with completely overpriced prices, etc.) One estimates a loss of about €50,000 in the end. So it is basically off the table.

Sounds strange to me. On the one hand, you claim that he earns enough to cover the house alone, on the other hand, there is more debt on the house than it’s worth. That doesn’t add up.

2. Renting out the house and covering the financing with the rental income: could be done, but new houses wear out too quickly with tenants who have several children (without children the house would be too big and impractical). Also, the "standard" rent assumed is set too high; not everything would be paid for. Overall unprofitable and not a great solution either.

That doesn’t add up either. If the property pays for itself with the rent, then it can also be sold reasonably well. I suspect that the rental income would not cover the loan, so both would have to keep contributing permanently or the value of the property would not be maintained.

3. One buys out the other's half of the house: theoretically the best solution. He would take over her half, she would transfer her half to him for €1. However, real estate transfer taxes and notary costs amounting to about €10,000 would apply. She doesn’t have these. Furthermore, the bank won’t release her from the contract because he supposedly doesn’t earn enough. But actually, that’s not the case.
en.

If case 1 applies, his loss amounts to about €25,000. Case 3 involves €10,000 costs, therefore saving €15,000, supposedly a total of €40,000.

As I said, I suspect that not all information/assumptions are correct; if they were, case 3 would be quite painless. But I think the bank has its reasons why she cannot get out of the loan, and then it eventually quickly comes to a sale, forcibly if necessary.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

A new building is hardly sellable at full cost price after 1-2 years if there are still vacant plots next door. The additional costs (especially the property transfer tax of 6.5%) are simply too high for that. Added to this would be the prepayment penalties. Since even the simplest houses without much frills cannot be built for less than €320,000, they would have to get at least €350,000 for them including prepayment penalties and so on. Only for that amount can you easily build new around here. Therefore, a sale is not a real solution.
The installment is not particularly high, reportedly under €1000. The property can probably be rented out at that price, but why. Hardly anyone rents a property long-term at a price where they could also pay off their own house. So there are frequent moves, which a house often doesn’t endure.

He can easily pay for the house alone, earns enough. However, the banker simply rejected it without examination. Probably one would have to submit a proper application and then it would be properly reviewed. Of course, the bank also doesn’t want to lose a second potential "exhauster" and would rather keep both in, or earn more from the sale now, or something similar.
Of course, no one can properly buy out the other. Who has €150,000 in the bank when the loan amounts to double that?!

Any blame and such is complete nonsense here and they know that too. Does such a document notarized by the notary even count for anything or isn’t it worth the money?!

Elsewhere I have already pointed out that building together destroys existence if the partnership breaks up.

Here is once again an example!

Without the bank's consent, there will be no reliable debt relief for an ex-partner.

Each of the two could be affected by the other's failure to pay and thus be caught up with this issue years later.

In this respect:

Sell, if necessary, if the ex-partner does not want to sell, have it auctioned.

Then negotiate with the bank who bears what. If no agreement is reached:

Private insolvency

This would also have happened to the man in the event of a divorce, but this time it drags the woman along as well.

That would have happened to the man even in the case of a divorce, only this time the woman gets dragged in as well.

It would have been the same in a divorce. Complete nonsense that only men always suffer.

The bank actually has no interest in a foreclosure under these circumstances, right? I would probably make another attempt there if the man really wants to keep the house. It will definitely be expensive if sold...

It destroys existence exactly when equity is seen only as a means to reduce interest rates and not as protection against life risks.