Securing construction financing with RVL

The remaining parent or the legal guardian will rent it out or sell it accordingly. Problem solved. The daughter does not need her own income. If debts exceed the value of the property, the inheritance is renounced. Once she turns 18, she can sell it or continue renting it out. Children really do not need their own property. They are better off without it.

And then move? It is not an investment property but a home. Selling also means leaving the environment. I don’t think it’s good to plan that from the start.

And then move?

Yes, of course. Owning a home with debt is not yet ownership. If the economic situation changes drastically, you have to move. That is naturally anticipated. Not necessarily because of a rather unlikely death, but separation, alimony, illness, and unemployment definitely. Then the house is simply sold. I find that completely normal.

Of course, you can see it that way, but then I would tend to remain a tenant. Although I have checked that the first two risks are still financially manageable. The house is only mine, so separation is not the problem. There would still be room for maintenance, although part of the ETF savings plans would have to be sacrificed. Permanent unemployment is rather manageable in my industry. Then there is illness, and you really can't predict that. It's also difficult to adequately insure against it with disability insurance. House with debt + money from the insurance is property again.

So we have decided on an RLV as a decreasing option. Two contracts that each cover the entire loan amount. Background: One of our children requires care, so one parent can definitely no longer work more than 20 hours alone. Even that is already quite challenging for a single parent. The remaining parent would also be very inflexible regarding working hours, so it is questionable whether we can continue to practice our professions as we do now. Therefore, we are playing it safe to definitely avoid selling the house.

Besides the RLV, there is also a half-orphan's pension for the children.

And for the surviving spouse, a widow's or widower's pension.

I would like to ask an interim question on the topic of RLV here, I don't want to open a new topic specifically for this. I have an RLV offer (criteria: coverage 300K over 20 years, non-smoker, fixed premium) from a provider who gives me two amounts to be paid instead of one. It looks like this (including asterisks, all quoted): ---------------- Monthly payment premium* €16.25 (Monthly tariff premium) €36.11 *The payment premium is the amount actually to be paid. It is guaranteed for the current business year and can change in subsequent years, but will never be higher than the tariff premium shown in parentheses. In addition, the premium can still change after application review (for example due to health risks). You alone decide whether the contract should come into effect. ---------------- Is this strange business practice with minimum - maximum premium common among RLV providers? What do you think about it? Personally, I feel "ripped off," excuse the expression. Especially the sentence "You alone decide whether the contract should come into effect." makes me feel like the customer is being made a fool of.