Taking possession before gift / usufruct / renting - disadvantages?

If it is important:
The aforementioned apartment is still "encumbered with a loan balance." The parents are the debtors.

Who takes over the debts? Usufruct is then registered subordinately?

Which house in a rural area is worth 600k€.

No house, an apartment in poor condition.

On 8 pages the wildest speculations were made here, although a lot has already gone wrong on your side. Which house in a rural area is worth 600k€? Why wasn’t it rented out even though there are still debts on it? The whole effort with rental contract, usufruct, gift is all unnecessary. The debts must be clarified beforehand, who takes them over and pays. Financing for someone who is just returning from abroad for a property burdened with usufruct is difficult. The value is below the limit of each 400k€, therefore both no gift tax and later no inheritance tax. Anyone can move in anywhere without a rental contract, without rent, without it having effects later. And whether the house is handed over now or in 3 months or 3 years however is irrelevant.

Thanks for your opinion, but why such a "wild" tone?

Just to clarify:

[*]I never said/wrote that the apartment is worth 600k€ / has a 600k€ value. See #42.

[*]It just was not supposed to be rented out, they didn’t want that. May sound strange, but that’s how it is, it’s supposed to exist. It was always intended for personal use, but original time frames changed, and so it happened.

[*]I never wrote that it is in poor condition either, only that the kitchen is old. Maybe “more bad than good” was misleading, but it referred exclusively to the kitchen, meaning the kitchen furniture and appliances.

- Quote from #1 -
An apartment was acquired by parents and has been and still is empty, but would basically be immediately habitable (more bad than good, but there is a functioning bathroom and an old kitchen (with old but functioning appliances).
- end quote -

[*]The property / apartment is currently not burdened with usufruct. The usufruct is a proposed model for the way forward, which I presented here in the discussion. A consideration. We thought it was a good way and also a usual one. Meanwhile one might think that it is the stupidest thing there is and that can be done, if you read all this and let it sink in. OK, that requires some reflection, which I already wrote.

Here again, thanks for the information and the suggestion to reconsider it.

Who takes over the debts? Usufruct will then be registered as subordinate?

No house, an apartment in poor condition.

Good question.

To save on the transfer of the loan and the associated fees, as well as to avoid the burden of "speculation", that is, the costs related to the aspect of "private sale within 10 years," we thought about the continuation of the loan by the parents, the donors. Good/bad?

I don’t exactly know what is meant by "subordinate registration." I need to google it first - sorry, I’m not familiar with it as described at the beginning.

I have already written something about the supposedly poor condition.

Best regards

In order to save the rewriting of the loan and the associated fees, as well as to save the burden from "speculation," that is, the costs from the aspect "private sale within 10 years," we thought about the continuation of the loan by the parents, the donors. Good/bad?

Loans cannot be simply rewritten. A continuation by the parents already makes sense. By the way, the loan has nothing to do with the speculation tax – you have to pay it if applicable, regardless of whether the apartment is financed or not.

I don’t know exactly what is meant by "subordinate registration." I have to google that first – sorry, I am not familiar with it as described at the beginning.

Short version:
In the land register there is also the rule "first come, first served." This means for the forced auction that the rights are served in their order. If the usufruct is in first place (i.e., before the mortgage), it remains in the forced auction – then you are protected, but no bank will finance such a property, since no one will buy it either (who wants to buy something if the rent goes to a third party). However, if the usufruct is subordinate to the mortgage, the bank is happy, because in case of the forced auction the bank gets its money and the usufruct is simply deleted. Bad for you, because then the usufruct is gone.

I already wrote something about the supposedly poor condition.

Read differently in the initial post.

Thank you.

And yes, that was poorly phrased.

PS:
We will read and reconsider all of this again over the next few days.