Land register entry - One owner, two debtors possible?

Maybe now summarized objectively. Your question is a feast for a lively forum like ours here ;)

And my partner and I are both listed as debtors in the construction contract.

No, if anything, you are both listed as clients in the contract for work. That is also good: For a building permit, both must sign.
If one is unable at some point, the other is also available as a contact person.

but both are debtors

You are both debtors with the lender and therefore both have to answer for the debt.
This also applies in the event of a separation: if one is stubborn and does not pay their share, the bank turns to the other. They do not care from whom they get the money. The main thing is that it comes. To put it bluntly: You stay in the house, do not pay, and are unreachable. Your girlfriend is caught off guard but is reachable for the bank, so she has to take responsibility for the debts... <- short version

Is there the possibility that it is notarized (in the land register or wherever)

In the land register, regardless of the borrower or contract for work/client, the future owner is registered. That should – fairly – be those who are also debtors of the loan. Then there are no problems. How you agree later is another matter. Of course, you can agree otherwise if one “brings in” the parents’ property or takes on the entire financing alone.
But even in the generations of my parents (probably your grandparents), it was usual for both spouses to be listed as owners in the land register, even if only the father earned money and the mother took care of child-rearing.

In case of a separation we do not want circus. I should get the house and she should be "paid out".

You can record this in a private contract. Some advise going to a lawyer/notary for this – I see it that a private contract is also valid if it is properly drawn up. Of course, both must sign.

Exaggerated: You stay in the house, but don’t pay and are unreachable. Your girlfriend is taken by surprise but accessible to the bank, so she has to cover the debts... <- short version

Exactly. Because of this "division of labor" after "common-law marriages," which is not so rare – "he lives there – she pays" – I would insist on security in the land register (I mean a land charge, joint ownership does not have to be) in the girlfriend’s place.

No, if at all, you stand together as clients in the contract for work and services.

If both enter into the contract for work and services, both owe the payment for work. In this respect, debtor was already correct. The contractor can then assert his claims against both. And conversely, it is usually contractually fixed that each client may make decisions alone.

You can record this in a private contract. Some advise going to a lawyer/notary for this – I see it so that a private contract is also valid if it is properly drawn up.

With all due respect: Anyone who asks like this will not manage a contract of this magnitude (hundreds of thousands of euros) on their own. There are specialists for this (certainly good ones and less good ones) and it’s not even that expensive. Therefore, I strongly advise against self-drafted arrangements. If you really need them, "stricter conditions" usually apply. This should be taken into account when drafting, i.e., it should be watertight.

Of course, the substantive agreement of both must precede this. Only when they both know what they want can it be fixed in writing (or a standard can be used, for example marriage).

What right could she possibly be fighting for? Month after month, it’s nothing but a gift. I have a similar situation in my circle of acquaintances, where there was a separation. He had built the house with a previous partner, and the new one got directly involved in the financing—and now has to get out again. She actually doesn’t care and retrospectively sees it as rent.

Sorry, then your acquaintance was stupid. Payments were being made toward the loan, right, or did she receive money for the repayment portion or her work in the garden, landscaping, etc.? Did she benefit from any increase in value? The second problem is the bank. It neither has to release a debtor from liability nor approve a debtor change.

Because of this not so uncommon "division of labor" in "wild marriages" "he lives there – she pays"

With all due respect: Anyone asking like this won't be able to handle a contract of this magnitude (hundreds of thousands of euros) on their own. There are specialists for that (certainly good and less good ones), and it’s not even that expensive. That's why I strongly advise against self-drafted arrangements. If you really need one, generally "stricter conditions" apply. That should be taken into account in the wording, i.e., it should be airtight.

Of course, this must be preceded by the substantive agreement of both parties. Only when they know what they want (both) can it be fixed in writing (or one resorts to a standard, e.g., marriage).

It is completely irrelevant whether married or not. Such scenarios can occur in both constellations.


I’m not talking about contracts juggling thousands of euros.
I’m talking about contracts in which you secure yourself contractually in case of separation within, for example, 5 years, where one party takes over the house with all subsequent costs (land register etc.), the other party classifies their contribution until then as rent-like and waives further rights or payments on the house. From the 6th year on, or when the repayment has already significantly reached a (five-figure) positive number, a corresponding payout is made. Etc.... all just examples.
I myself have already signed, filed away, and let some of these contracts expire -> once even executed afterwards and therefore found it good and practical.
You just have to agree on it and lay it out objectively. And honestly: criminal energies, rental nomadism, faking financial circumstances, etc... character falseness doesn’t develop suddenly, one has it in their blood. One can already recognize that in early relationship status.

Sorry then your acquaintance was stupid. It was also amortized, or did she see any money for the repayment portion or her work in creating the garden, etc.? Did she benefit from any increase in value? The second problem is the bank. It neither has to release a debtor from liability nor agree to a debtor transfer.

My acquaintance is the "he" who still lives there. ;)

I’ll say again clearly, I wouldn’t do it that way either and wouldn’t advise the ladies to do something like that.

Besides, the lady is rather on the smart side. And pragmatic too.

Ultimately, sufficiently well-off without having to chase after some small change. Because you have to consider what kind of value is being paid off. You talk about increase in value. Well, she lived there for 3-4 years, paid a few hundred euros monthly. Much less than an apartment or a house with a garden would have cost in rent. The shack is on his parents’ land, over 100 years family property. Ordinary people can’t buy or rent anything there.

No one pays you for gardening work in a rental property either. You do it and enjoy it, then the next person enjoys it if it lasts.

Return? Sure, maybe fictitiously, because not realizable, but if she has the attitude of the tenant, so what? She may have put in around 20-25K euros, say 5% return over time—should he now give her 1000 euros just out of decency? Neither him nor her cares.

They don’t argue at all, it’s not worth the amount.