Taking possession before gift / usufruct / renting - disadvantages?

:

Sorry, I can't follow.

I'll try again:

1.
You say it is exotic to set up a usufruct, ok, we thought it was common.

2.
You say usufruct has nothing to do with use by the donor, and that "we" have no right to it. Who has no right to what? Can't follow. The right is supposed to be reserved precisely for the donor. He/she should keep the right to do whatever they want with the apartment during their lifetime. And what that is, the own use in the near future as a second home, I have already written. Beforehand it should and can gladly be rented to the own child instead of to strangers. Fits well. What is unclear or wrong about that?

3.
You further say, "around it," like for example free use. Yes, exactly - and that for the first 1 to max. 3 months until the gift and the drafting of how much rent should and can be charged later, and whether it all makes sense, etc. What is wrong with letting the child live rent-free for the first max. 3 months, instead of making a random unconsidered rental contract before drafting the later details? Especially since a gift is anyway pending. Only then, yes, if it drags on, meaning the said 1 to 3 years, then money/rent should flow, after all the apartment has been empty long enough and charging a local rent from one's own child when it has already been gifted, we consider legitimate and decent/reasonable.

4.
"Unpledgeability for the bank," sorry I don't understand that - what does it mean?

5.
"You still haven't said why you really want to do it"
What??? That's everything! It says it all. :rolleyes:

A usufruct often occurs with farms in the context of anticipated inheritance; with your structure, something like a right of residence would have come to mind instead.

If after the described 1 to max. 3 years the child moves out and away, but at the same time the parents' timeframe for the cited intended personal use as a secondary residence is still delayed (because who knows today what might come up in between, illness, frailty, ...), then the right of residence cannot be rented out to third parties and a renewed vacancy without rent and without personal use would be the result. Ergo, usufruct beats right of residence because it is more flexible.

Or are we making a fundamental error in thinking here?

If, after the described 1 to a maximum of 3 years, the child moves out and moves on, but at the same time the parents' timeframe for the quoted intended owner-occupation as a secondary residence is still delayed (because who knows nowadays what can come in between, illness, frailty, ...), then the right of residence cannot be rented out to third parties and an additional vacancy without rent and without owner-occupation would be the result. Ergo, usufruct overruns the right of residence because it is more flexible.

Or are we making a fundamental mistake here?

Why exactly should the apartment now be gifted to you? To save inheritance tax?

"You still haven't said why you really want to do this"
What??? That's all! It's all right there

No. Why do you want to give away + register usufruct. I don't want to know who uses the property how.

"Non-pledgeability for the bank", sorry I don't understand that - what does it mean?

It means that the owner (the son) will not get a loan from the bank if, for example, the roof of the house needs to be renewed, for which he has to pay. Or if the apartment needs to be renovated sometime.

Why exactly should the apartment now be given to you as a gift? To save inheritance tax?

Yes, acquaintances said, "what, why don't you already inherit during your lifetime, or have you long since done so?? If everything goes well, you can make use of the tax exemption amount and, as mentioned, if all goes well, benefit again from passing on the remaining balance tax-free as inheritance/gift."

No. Why do you want to give it away ...

See #28. Gift during lifetime. Utilize the tax exemption. I think, as said/written, many do it that way and it is common.

... ... + Have usufruct registered. ... ...

I have explained that several times. Retention of the right of use for/by the donor.

... It means that the owner (the son) will not get a loan from the bank, for example if the roof of the house needs to be renewed, which he has to pay for. Or if the apartment needs renovation.

Why should the child not get a loan from a bank? Maybe I am overlooking something, but the child will earn money, have a normal job, and if he still needs money for the roof etc., then we will provide that, and I do not see why he could not also get a loan from the bank in an emergency. But as I said, I am not very knowledgeable about this.

Hope that answers well now? But maybe also briefly to my explanations on your earlier questions, perhaps you can also answer these, my follow-up questions (see in the following quote) that I asked based on your input? Otherwise it somehow just remains lost ...

: Sorry, I can’t follow. I will try again: ... 2. You say usufruct has nothing to do with use by the donor, and that "we" have no right to it. Who has no right to what? Can’t follow. The right is supposed to be reserved precisely for the donor. He/she should retain the right to do with the apartment whatever they want during their lifetime. And what that is, own use in the near future as a second home, I have already written. Before that, it should and can gladly be rented to one’s own child instead of to a stranger. That fits well. What is unclear or wrong about that? 3. You furthermore say, "around it," like free use, for example. Yes, exactly – namely for the first 1 to max 3 months until the gift and the elaboration of how much rent should and can be charged later, and whether it all adds up, etc. What is wrong with letting the child live rent-free for the first max 3 months, instead of blindly making an unconsidered rental contract before working out the later details? Especially since a gift is anyway pending. Only then, yes, if it drags on, i.e. the said 1 to 3 years, then rent should indeed flow, after all the apartment was empty long enough and demanding a local customary rent from your own child when it has already been gifted, we perceive as legitimate and decent/reasonable. ...

Best regards :)