I had asked in my post not to judge. You have no clue what we have been through and sentences like "I’d like to be that clueless sometimes" you can spare yourself. You don’t know any backgrounds or anything. I asked for constructive help.
But you didn’t write constructively. And since no one really understands the text – the backgrounds would have been helpful – only comments like mine come up. Others didn’t see it differently, as you have read. Aside from that, I have pointed out three constructive options related to the specific situation. You’re welcome.
You are right about the confusion though. It’s also hard to describe but I’ll try it like this: - Person A dies (no will) - leaves heirs A1, A2 (me), and A3 - for that property with land, Person A and Person B are listed in the land register - A owns more than half - Person C and Person A would inherit 50/50% in the event of Person B’s death - A2 and A3 now move up into A’s place in the legal succession since A has died - thus, in the potential case of B’s death (no will), C would inherit 50% and A2 and A3 would each inherit 25%
Thanks. Now it’s more understandable.
- part of the property was a gift from Person B to Person A 20 years ago
Completely irrelevant.
- Person C wants to be paid by Person A for their inheritance share of Person B so that Person A then owns everything, or now the surviving heirs - Person C lives far away from the property and has no interest in it - Person C receives the agreed sum from A, Person B is informed - there are no written proofs about this, only a bank statement that proves the payment
Also irrelevant.
- A1, A2 and A3 ask B to initiate the gift, B wants to do it as well
Then the solution is simple. B just goes to the notary – C doesn’t have to care about that.
- C however vetoes and wants twice as much money as already paid,
C is uninvolved and (formally) cannot veto.
Person B agrees to this and only wants to gift after the additional amount has been paid
That makes B the only problem.
- if A1, A2 and A3 don’t pay C again, B wants to sell the part of the property that belongs to her
Let him do that. If you are all joint owners of the property, an ideal co-ownership share is theoretically sellable, but practically it’s not. There is no one who would buy such a share. At least, I haven’t seen that in over 30 years of practice. B will definitely die before he can sell his share.
- Person B’s residential unit has been vacant for over 10 years, is neither occupied nor rented out - Person B does not participate in any costs or maintenance/repairs of the property
It will be exciting when B gets the first letter from the lawyer. That’s what I meant by “putting pressure on.”
- B is old and sick and wants to get money out for C who has high debts
Tell him that now a different wind is blowing since A has died. Now invoices will be forwarded by lawyers. And if repairs are necessary, he will be asked to pay. But he can avoid the stress if he acts as agreed.
In point 5 you write that the amount of a payout could be influenced for your own purposes by a well-chosen appraiser. How is that supposed to work? Doesn’t every appraiser do the same report?
You can tell you’re a layperson. Formally, all appraisers write comparable reports. But since the evaluation guidelines allow a lot of leeway, the final stated value can be extremely different. Whether an “old wreck” is worth 500k or only 50k is determined by the appraiser and ultimately by the one who commissions it. One appraiser says “the vacant apartment can be rented at any time,” the other says “this is structural vacancy – renting is impossible.” One says “something must be done to the property – I estimate the costs at 175k” – the other says “for economic reasons, a renovation I estimate at 350k is not justifiable. Therefore, I only assess the overall property at the land value minus demolition costs.” Both appraisers have worked completely correctly. But these are only estimates and, in the end, personal opinions covered by the leeway the appraisers have.
Yes, and with the death of A all other parties have moved out of the house. The wife (A1) can’t maintain a 220sqm house without payments from B at all. B currently pays nothing and the wife of A carries all the burdens. Or now all the heirs. B and C want money and B is old and sick and C has high debts. So with this A1, A2 and A3 are the family’s scapegoats. Especially since A3 is only in their early 20s and too young to be able to decide or assess such matters.
Again, send bills to B as well. Threaten partition auctions. Find tenants for both apartments and push with the lawyer for signing the rental contracts – possibly litigate. Etc. Make the decision easy for him to stick to the agreements.
In an initial legal consultation we were actually advised not to wait for B’s death. That was basically my idea because then A2 and A3 would inherit further shares of the house. But the lawyer said C could persuade B to make a will to the detriment of A2 and A3. Because the compulsory portion that would remain for us then would be extremely small.
Yes, but the compulsory portion must be paid out in €. You would not inherit part of the property, but exclusively cash. Can C manage that with his debts? Because no one gets a loan on the house unless all owners agree. I would, in coordination with the lawyer, bring out the “I make B’s life hell” club. Also, get an appraisal in coordination with B. Oh yes, I would also apply for a partition auction. Then it gets serious. And the pressure enormous. The auction can – as long as B has not joined (it will still be auctioned before) – be canceled by you at any time. Even during the hearing when the first bids come in.