Property division and construction project developer

Remember that the real estate transfer tax then applies to the house and land.

Those are good points regarding project developers. My research has shown that the company has existed for 15 years, but there are hardly any references. The first contact was friendly. You find very little about the company on Google, etc., and the homepage is also somewhat outdated. They didn’t want to give me direct contact to homeowners of reference projects either, because many homeowners don’t want that either, which is quite understandable. I also don’t want someone standing in front of my house every few weeks wanting to take a look.

Furthermore, the project developer also wants to secure themselves contractually and offers the house at a fixed price. According to consumer advocates, you should never sign such a contract before you have acquired the land. I fully agree with that. I also want to know in advance exactly how I could build on the land and whether the building authority would approve it.

With prefab house builders I’ve had contact with in the past, it was often the case that they didn’t want to reveal the address of the potential land at first and often required signing a preliminary contract before taking the next steps.

There should not be an access road with neighbors, but this should be regulated among the future landowners by a paved 3-5 meter wide driveway. Parking spaces are supposed to be partly on the properties.

You can tell that skepticism is starting to spread here. Are there really that many bad apples in the construction industry? You really don’t want to believe it.


I’ve stumbled across that too. In this case, the issue regarding property transfer tax would probably be clear.

Are there really so many black sheep in the construction industry?

Black sheep is relative. Everyone plays with open cards. Even if these say "contract first" and only afterwards you are given a plot of land. Maybe not the plot where the house you want fits.
Right of withdrawal is always communicated openly. You just have to read the passages, evaluate them and decide for yourself what you want.
That also applies to the building description. It always states exactly what you get. Everything that is not mentioned, you don’t get.
When I do homework with my children, I have also been saying for years with word problems, "it literally says what to do – please don’t believe, think, or assume things." It’s the same in construction. Don’t assume anything, don’t expect anything, and especially don’t say "I thought that…!"

If what I have written are the "black sheep" you mentioned, then the industry is absolutely full of them. But there are always two parties involved in a contract. And unfortunately, often one party works with expectations and is then disappointed.

It is not your job to deal with the concerns of your potential future contract partner. But it would be your job, among other things, to work through my follow-up questions. All reputable project developers have the current projects as well as reviews of the already completed projects on their websites. All in a way that can be found, yet the builders there are not stalked. Property addresses are often not disclosed in advance because they either do not exist (rarely) or at least are not accessible to the supposed provider (unfortunately not rarely, see here for Grundstücksservice / 11ant Leerverkauf). Planning work costs money, it cannot be given away to potential customers who just want to have a little house drawn for fun. If you do not want to share the insight into the project exposé here publicly, you can also find your way to me personally via the forum search with the term "quotation marks." I am quite familiar with the valuation of sheepskin colors as well. The project developer should nicely make the building inquiry available to you openly; he does not take any risks with that, and you are adequately informed.

Moreover, the project developer also wants to secure himself contractually and offers the house at a fixed price. According to consumer protection advocates, one should never sign such a contract as long as the land has not yet been purchased.

I had already given you a specific project as an example where the buyers are now suffering owners of "Schürmann buildings" after a chain of bankruptcies and naturally cannot move into these basements without ceilings – some construction ruins are even more advanced. You can excellently go bankrupt at a fixed price, too. By the way, for your land transfer tax it is completely irrelevant whether you acquire the land and the house from formally separate hands.

If what I wrote are the "black sheep" you mentioned, then the industry is absolutely filled with them. But there are always two parties involved in a contract. And unfortunately, there is often one party who works with expectations and is subsequently disappointed.

However, every good fraudster also knows "how to do it," how to fully shift the legal blame onto the victim’s imaginary dramatization. By the way, the recent wave of developer bankruptcies has massively affected the customers of white sheep. I also recommend to the OP and the interested readers the forum search term "Fleischerhaus" for the pillow.

I have now searched again for short selling here and came across some posts by ant11. It sounds a bit like how you described it. In this construction contract, for example, "the property" is mentioned. It is not specified where the property is located, etc. However, it also states that the contract becomes void if the property is not sold to the contracting party... By the way, the property itself is marketed by a real estate agent and is also listed on the relevant portals.

What I generally wonder: Such project developers have not just existed since yesterday. The company history is also quite present. So if there had already been major scandals, similar to those with the properties of the "Graf", then it would be found somewhere. But there is nothing about that. Surely there would have been court cases etc. So maybe in the end it actually works "without problems" to build with this kind of companies?! How in general is a company with common practice in short selling supposed to maintain its reputation? It would get into trouble immediately, or am I mistaken?

I have now searched again for short selling here and came across some posts by ant11. It does sound a bit like how you described it. [...] What I generally wonder: Such project developers have not only existed since yesterday. The company history is indeed present. So if there had already been bigger scandals, similar to those with the "Count's" plots of land – then that would be found somewhere. But you find nothing about it. Surely there would already be court cases etc. So maybe in the end it actually works "without problems" to build with this type of company?! How can a company with common practice in short selling even maintain its license in general? It would immediately get into trouble or am I mistaken?

Well, annes1982Joh, you seem to be mixing up quite a few things now. I gave you the keyword of short selling as an answer to the paragraph in which you mentioned the reluctance of the ("ready-made" house) providers regarding the locations of the plots. For projects like the one you described, I have never heard of short selling, and it would not work there either. It is a widespread decoy trick by independent house salespeople, which probably mostly stems from their own ideas, even if I hardly believe the allegedly uninformed companies mentioned by name and logo. The count's plots actually exist; they were indeed sold to those who are now the victims. I mentioned this project as an example of a fiasco which was even made bigger by a fixed price instead of avoided. The customers there now at least no longer build with the then provider / price promiser.

For example, this building contract mentions "the plot". It is not specified where the plot is located, etc. However, it also states that the contract becomes void if the plot is not sold to the contract partner... By the way, the plot itself is marketed by a broker and is also listed on the relevant portals.

Well then you can easily name the (Scout?) ID of the offer. And your "contacting a project developer" was apparently simply a reaction to this public offer. Or is only the plot (with secret location?) offered there and not connected to the project exposé? – don’t let them pry all the basics out of you!

A serious project presents itself with a description that also includes a parceling plan showing the location of the houses. Of course, even in the developed state of the campus, not demolished buildings on the computer drawing look less dilapidated than in reality, but otherwise one can always tell what is being talked about. I interpret your description so far as if a community of heirs has commissioned a project developer to develop and market a blot in their possession as building plots. Based on size and further description, I suspect a former farmstead in a densely settled village location that does not justify a development plan and should accordingly be newly built according to the insertion requirement. This does not sound like an invention of the project developer, although I do not rule out a retreat by the owners. However, a serious developer can also state and prove his mandate.