KFW Definition of "Ownership" / KFW 300

Hello,

I would like to get your assessment or experience on the following topic.

To qualify for the KFW 300 New Construction subsidy, among other things, one must not be the "owner or possessor" of a property.

Shortly before submitting the application for the KFW 300 New Construction (not first purchase/acquisition!), we signed a notarized purchase contract for a plot of land with an existing property.

After an initial consultation with KFW, this is now considered detrimental to funding because with a signed notarized purchase contract, we are considered to be in possession of a property. This is not correct under German law.

At the time of application submission to KFW, we were neither owners nor possessors of the property according to German law.

In KFW funding programs (KFW458), where ownership is required, KFW demands "at least a notice of conveyance in the land register" as proof of ownership. Our notice of conveyance registration in the land register took place demonstrably after the application submission.

The purchase of the existing property was financed from own funds.

The delivery and service contract for the future new construction includes the necessary suspensive clause.

All this information and arguments have been communicated to KFW via the Infocenter by e-mail. However, there has been no response for 2 weeks.

Do you have experience with the topic "definition of ownership" in KFW funding and any tips on how we should handle this situation? What steps can we still take?

Thank you very much for your support.

Best regards JG

Do you have any experience with the topic "Definition of property" in KFW funding and do you have tips on how we should handle this situation?

Please ask KfW to provide you with the relevant basis for the decision. The funding conditions only state "in possession." Formally, the purchase contract is not possession, but there may be other documents in which "possession" is defined according to KfW terminology.

I am currently only addressing what you write:

To qualify for the KFW 300 new construction subsidy, among other things, you must not be an "owner or possessor" of a property.

Ok, that is clear.

Shortly before submitting the application for the KFW 300 new construction (not first purchase/acquisition!), we signed a notarized purchase contract for a plot with an existing property.

According to the KfW website, the 300 only applies to the first purchase - I do not understand your point in parentheses. In addition, you explicitly write that you signed BEFORE submitting the application - so the KfW is basically right...

At the time the application was received by the KFW, we were neither owners nor possessors of the property under German law.

But above you write the opposite...

Or is there an error somewhere?

The question that overshadows everything is: was the notarized contract signed before or after the application was received by the KfW? Your information is contradictory to me...

Hello,

thank you very much for your quick response.

The KFW 300 funding distinguishes between two scenarios:

- New construction: A property is newly built that meets the KFW40+ standards
- First purchase/first acquisition: Concerns the purchase of an already built property that meets the KFW40+ standards and the building acceptance is no longer than 12 months ago

We have submitted a "new construction" application because we will build a new building there after the demolition of the existing property.

Yes, it is correct that we signed a notarized purchase contract before the application was submitted. However, this does not immediately make you the owner or proprietor. According to German law, you officially become the proprietor only after payment of the purchase price and the written transfer of possession. You officially become the owner only after the entry in the land register.

At the time of the funding application submission, we were therefore neither legally the proprietor nor the owner.

Therefore, I do not understand the preliminary statement of the KFW and the "KFW's own definition of ownership." Especially since in other funding programs (KFW458) explicitly only after the entry of the priority notice of conveyance and not after the signed notarized contract is "ownership" spoken of. (see screenshot in the attachment)

Hence this inquiry in the forum to learn about assessments, similar cases, and other perspectives.

Thank you very much for the support.

Best regards

I therefore do not understand the preliminary statement of the KFW and "KFW's own definition of ownership". Especially since in other funding programs (KFW458) it explicitly speaks of "ownership" only after the reservation of conveyance and not the signed notarial contract. (see screenshot attached)

In my experience, one immediately leads to the other - as soon as the notarial contract is signed, the conveyance is entered in the land register to "protect" the buyer, so that no mischief can occur until the final transfer of ownership.

For me, this means that, according to the KfW, the relevant transfer of ownership had already taken place BEFORE you submitted the application. The land register entry is only requested by them upon submission of the proofs.

Phew, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you...

I wouldn't even discuss it myself with the KfW anymore, but just have a lawyer handle it. Then the responses will also come faster.