House purchase: Sale before the expiry of 10 years - Right of first refusal

Do a rent-to-own or something similar. Somehow you can bridge the time, can't you?!

I wonder if the wife doesn't still have a right of first refusal? I wanted to bring that up because I immediately thought of it when I saw the headline...

Yes, the problem is, however, that the seller cannot sell if he also has to pay the municipality.

Once again. That is not your problem, but the seller's AFTER THE SALE! Let the municipality be upset with him, but not you.

How is he supposed to sell if he then has to pay 90,000 euros to the municipality? That would lead to insolvency all the more..

Yes and? Where is the problem? You win ==> have the house / He wins ==> has to pay nothing to the municipality due to personal insolvency / City ==> suffers no damage

In that case, he could no longer offer us the house at this good price but would have to ask for more. As it stands now, we only take over the loan and he is out of the matter. No further payments will be made from which he could pay possible costs incurred by him.

If the house were so easy to sell, why doesn't he sell it at a price high enough to pay off the financing including VE? Please free yourselves from the thought that you are making a super bargain. Nobody has anything to give away.

Once again. That is not your problem, but the seller’s AFTER SALE! Let the municipality deal with him, but not you.

Once again. That is also our problem, because the seller does not want to sell if he incurs costs afterwards that he cannot cover!
The sale is transparent and the seller does not enter into the deal if he is very likely to become insolvent afterwards. (It’s not that far yet and ideally he wants to prevent that through a quick sale)

So what? Where is the problem? You win ==> get the house / He wins ==> does not have to pay anything to the municipality due to personal bankruptcy / City ==> suffers no damage

He is not insolvent yet, he is losing money every month and if it continues like this for a few more months he will have to file for personal bankruptcy. However, he could also rent out the house (two-family) and move into a smaller apartment himself. => we lose

or

He goes to the open market with the property and demands the price he owes the bank + penalty to the bank + payment to the municipality (and he will get that, because the property is worth that much). That way he would also be fine and could avoid insolvency => we lose

In the option that we take over the loan and he does not have to pay anything to the municipality, he can also sell to us. The consequences for him would be the same, namely he comes out of the whole thing with zero and we have the house. => we win

So why should he risk that and still sell to us? He does not necessarily have to file for insolvency if he manages to sell the house soon.
The aspect of the impending insolvency is only relevant for the municipality’s decision.

I hope it is clear why it is also our problem if the municipality does not give the go-ahead..

What I don't understand. He only has to pay something to the municipality if he somehow makes a profit from the matter, right? But he doesn't do that at all. If you repay the loan, he gives you such a great price, etc., then he doesn't earn a cent and gets off with a black eye. So why should he have to pay 90,000 to the municipality?