Mortgage value appraisal and Article 13 of the Basic Law

I don't understand that. Where does it say that Art. 13 only applies to the state? Does Art. 1 para. 1 sentence 1 GG also only apply to the state?

In Art. 1 para. 3 GG...
Indirectly also in 93 para. 1 number 4a GG...
Primarily yes; read Art. 1 para. 1 sentence 2 GG.

Hello Otus11,

I do not find that comparable at all. I am the owner, not the bank!

Then why do you pay a monthly installment to the bank if you are the sole owner? Just stop the payments, nothing can happen, after all, it is your property.

What will happen? Exactly – the bank will eventually foreclose, meaning they will dispose of your property. The question is how they can do that even though they are not the owner?

By the way, it is exactly the same with any installment purchase – the item remains the property of the seller until the last installment is paid. You also don’t have the vehicle registration document of a financed vehicle until the last installment is transferred. Ergo, you cannot sell your house without your bank’s approval.

Legally, you are therefore merely the possessor and partial owner of the property – sole owner only once the loan is fully repaid.

In this respect, all your rights are preserved, and you also have every option not to let the bank into the house, but that will possibly have consequences, which have already been explained to you here. For my property, I also took the requested photos myself, which was then okay.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

Hello Otus11,

aha, so that means that fundamental rights are only binding for the state. Everyone else, meaning private individuals or companies, are allowed to restrict them.
From whom should all state power protect human dignity? From themselves, since human dignity is touchable for everyone else but not for the state? That’s nonsense!

By the way, is a Sparkasse now public or not? Public law, yes in any case!
It remains exciting.

Best regards,
Max

Hello Otus11,

I don't find that comparable at all. I am the owner, not the bank!

I know that well. I said comparable, not identical.

Don't be so narrow-minded... What owners and tenants have to tolerate could, after consideration, also be expected of owners.

Ok, so let's base it on ownership. And end up with § 903 of the Building Code. It is not unlimited, as also evident from Art. 14 of the Basic Law.

Hello Dirk,

Why do you then pay a monthly installment to the bank if you are the sole owner? Just stop the payments, nothing can happen, after all it’s your property.

According to the land register entry, I am the sole owner, not the savings bank! In the deed of assignment for the land charge, I notarized to the lender that in case of default, the property may be "liquidated" or foreclosed, otherwise the savings bank would not have approved the loan in the first place. But that does not make the savings bank a co-owner! I am very much allowed to sell the property (e.g. move), but then I have to pay a prepayment penalty to the savings bank. The savings bank is not allowed to do that.

Incidentally, it is exactly the same with any installment purchase – the item remains the property of the seller until the last installment is paid.

As stated above, this is NOT an installment purchase and not synonymous!

You also don’t have the vehicle registration document of a financed vehicle in your possession until the last installment has been paid.

Although this is now very pedantic, it serves to illustrate that such formulation details as co-ownership, installment purchase, etc. very much matter. You cannot register the car with the local registration office without the vehicle registration document! I bought my car from a dealer about 300 km away. The process was that I signed a purchase contract. When the new vehicle was at the dealer, I received the vehicle registration document by registered mail, registered and insured the car in my name, and then drove to the dealer with the license plates in my hand, paid, and then took the car. With this background, your statement above is completely wrong. Although it is clear what you mean – namely that you cannot freely dispose of the car if you have not paid – you can indeed already have the vehicle registration document as a synonym for the "proof of ownership or claim of ownership" in your possession even before paying a single cent!

I don’t see how § 903 of the Building Code and Article 14 of the Basic Law would override Article 13.

Best regards,
Max

Hello Dirk,

According to the land register entry, I am the sole owner, not the Sparkasse!

The Sparkasse holds - if you really want to split hairs - land register-secured rights equivalent to ownership. However, I would only discuss the term "equivalent to ownership" over a beer with if I am in the mood to learn something new.

Yes, you are listed alone in Section 1 - and yet the Sparkasse is in Section 3 and leads you by the nose through the arena if it absolutely has to or if you fail to make your agreed payments, since the Sparkasse’s rights in Section 3 affect your ownership rights in Section 1.

In the deed of establishment for the land charge, I assured the lender notarized that in the event of default the property may be "liquidated" or foreclosed, otherwise the Sparkasse would not have approved the loan at all. But that does not make the Sparkasse a co-owner! I am very much allowed to sell the property (e.g. moving), but then I have to pay the Sparkasse a prepayment penalty. The Sparkasse is not allowed to do that.

If you don’t pay, they are allowed quite a bit.

As said above, this is NOT an installment purchase and not synonymous!

Of course it is an installment purchase. Just a bit bigger than for a TV.

It’s very nitpicky now, but to illustrate that such formulation details like co-owner, installment purchase, etc. really matter, it’s useful.
You can’t register the car at the vehicle registration office without the registration certificate! I bought my car from a dealer about 300 km away. It worked like this: I concluded a purchase contract. When the new vehicle was at the dealer, I received the registration certificate by registered mail, registered and insured the car in my name. Then I drove to the dealer with the license plates under my arm, paid, and then received the car. Against this background, your statement above is completely wrong.

No, it’s simply not wrong. The document was sent to you by registered mail - ask yourself why? Some banks only send the document to the relevant vehicle registration authority for re-registration; the person re-registering never even gets to hold it.

Though it is clear what you mean - that you cannot freely dispose of the car if you haven’t paid. But you can very well already hold the registration certificate as a synonym for the “proof or claim of ownership” even before paying a single cent!

Yes - for the purpose of re-registration you may briefly hold the document in your hand; but nothing more. The registered mail guarantees receipt to the bank, so the bank knows you have the document - and if it is not back in their safe in a timely manner, they quickly get suspicious.

I don’t see how § 903 of the Building Code and Article 14 of the Basic Law should repeal Article 13.

Best regards,
Max

It is relatively irrelevant whether you see it – that’s how it is or rather, you can’t invoke Article 13 at all. @Otuss11 has already explained that as minimally as perfectly.

You can also skip the entire legal discussion and simply tell the bank that you do not allow the bank employee into the house. Period. It may be that the effort compared to the benefit is too great for them, then no one will come by. But it may also be that they enforce their rights. That takes time – but it works.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe