Land division within the family and development

According to the building authority, there is no development plan in this area.

1. Adjust the proportions accordingly
2. then we can have a meaningful discussion.

I don't understand why one wouldn't simply take a screenshot of the cadastral excerpt, its proportions always fit,
and voilà, the handle is almost as good as screwed on.

You are right there.

Before anything is sold or demolished, I would submit a preliminary building enquiry

Thank you very much for the hint.

We proceeded as follows for a similar case in NRW: 1. Called the municipal office responsible for construction matters, described the case, asked how to proceed best. 2. Did the same at the building authority. 3. Submitted a building application, waited for approval. 4. Applied for subdivision approval (including surveying, etc.) and waited. 5. Had a combined building encumbrance registered to allow border construction. 6. Transferred the property and house by donation.

In our case, however, it involves two adjoining buildings. Our house is not being demolished but only remodeled, i.e., the exterior walls remain. Also, you do not only want to divide the properties but into 3 parts and then combine 2 properties. At least a preliminary building inquiry is mandatory for this case! I would still recommend discussions with the building authority beforehand. Whether there is the same possibility in BW as in NRW to have a combined building encumbrance registered to allow border construction is another question.

You are right about that.

I couldn’t have said it better myself; the deviation from your rough principle sketch is quite significant (as I had suspected). Now one can see much more clearly and develop well-founded proposals.

Even better, you also upload another section (radius about 100 m), then one can also recognize "actual building boundaries." If possible, choose a map in which the single-story outbuildings are differentiated.

The current house No. 14 seems to slightly overbuild its plot boundary to the western neighbor. And from the plot numbers, the suspicion is confirmed that plot 15/2 was separated/demarked from a former overall plot 15.

I would—of course as an "expression of opinion, not legal advice"—consider departing significantly from the path of the measures you described. So let’s assume you were someone who listened to Charly’s father’s advice, then the following situation or approach would be obvious: 1. presumably, a merger of "15 now" and "15/2" would result in nothing other than the restoration of the overall plot "15 old"; 2. all the players are (through marriage) related to each other; 3. your father-in-law (= the biological testator of your wife) is involved as an owner in this entirety, namely in part 1 with house A together with his siblings in equal shares and in part 2 with house B jointly with his wife (who is also the biological testator of your wife).

Whether someone is a rogue or a fool remains open and is up for choice. Honestly: Charly’s father—and I understand him very well here—considers the measures of the new subdivision of the property(ies) to be a somewhat unnecessary middle-class nonsense that creates unnecessary fee obligations and tax events (in the event of inheritance even a second time). From his point of view, the following is just obvious: 1. contribution of the previous ownership shares in the plots "15 now" and "15/2" to a property community; 2. leasehold contracts of the property community for the "blue framed" area to the spouses "You & wife" and for the "red framed" area to the parents-in-law; 3. settlement of the father-in-law with his siblings not through land, but through shares in the community; 4. furthermore, much more favorable gift possibilities arise from the parents-in-law to your wife and you, also via the transfer of shares.

In your leasehold contract (2./blue), handling of the costs for clearing the area by demolishing house A is also arranged. At least Charly’s father claims, and I also know suitable lawyers and tax advisors. But with that, we are already almost at the end of my honor-free thinking aloud.

Are houses A and B actually in such different conditions because the parents-in-law still occupy B, but you want to demolish A?

Thank you very much for the detailed response. That definitely sounds like a sensible alternative.

Another option would be to dissolve the community of heirs for plot 15 and the house standing on it, so that my father-in-law would be the sole person listed in the land register and would pay off his siblings. According to § 3 of the Real Estate Transfer Tax Act, no real estate transfer tax should then be incurred for this. He would then sell plot 15 completely to my wife and me, and we would refrain from extracting/measuring out the partial area of 15 and save the costs for that. Provided my parents-in-law agree to it.

Are houses A and B actually in such different condition because the parents-in-law continue to live in B, but you want to demolish A?

Yes, they are, but it still needs to be clarified with an architect whether the demolition of A makes sense or if a complete renovation would be more reasonable.

Thank you very much for the detailed answer.

I will pass on the thanks to Charly's father.

That definitely sounds like a sensible alternative.

I would rather call the "alternative" "Plan A" – the habits of the non-nobility differ from those of family offices and fideicommissa. The "little man" apparently likes to shift his assets into the state treasury. To each his own pleasure.

He would then sell the entire plot 15 to my wife and me, and we would forego the subdivision/measurement of the partial area of 15, thus saving the costs for it. Provided my parents-in-law agree to that.

In *ahem* my circles *smile* they say, only those who also cut from sums (see above) would buy something from a testator. Even the smallest dog can jump over the line on the cadastral map easily if you don’t actually draw it with a fence. For legitimizing enjoyment and disposal, attachable property is not necessary. Whoever enjoys paying taxes for the transfer of their assets between a savings book and a cookie jar should be allowed to do so. At least it dawns on you that fee generation for a virtual fence has no nutritional value. So there is still hope.