ypg
2025-10-01 20:37:15
- #1
If you wanted to build a single-family house, then you could pull yourself out of the BT thing.
With a partial development, there are other problems, namely the prerequisites.
I assume that this is a recently completed new development area, where this plot is still available. The seller is the city/municipality?!
The BT has already built several houses there, regardless of in what capacity or role. Since “people” know each other, there is now this option to build with them as well.
If you were to decide on this (1) (why not, it shouldn’t be a tied sale in the purchase 2025, construction contract 2026), he would make you one or two proposals (single-family house, semi-detached house, two-family house), plan with you, and then build the desired DH. Beforehand, you would have purchased the ideal half and the BT/GU possibly the other half, to then sell together. Or the agreement also applies to the second, first to buy the plot, then the semi-detached house, but probably as a tied sale. Doesn’t matter, that shouldn’t be the topic here, just to explain something.
What you can do is (1).
Or you can (2) buy the entire plot yourself. Find a building partner for the second half, then jointly find a GU who builds you your DH. You might end up again with the mentioned BT/GU, could be. But that certainly means + 1 year, if not more.
Buying only an ideal half is legally possible, but in all respects the WEG applies, meaning the signature of both owners is required. You don’t seriously believe the city is keen to constantly be a “plot” partner with you for your decisions, when they actually want to get rid of the plot. In theory, they would then permanently sit on an ideal half, while you plan half a house.
That’s not how sales are done in the construction business. And you don’t want that either.
I have no problems with WEG or ideal division. But you have to be able to communicate as partners who also want that and are equals.
However, I wonder why you reject the BT. He doesn’t seem to be insolvent, has done everything correctly (otherwise he wouldn’t still be commercially involved), and in the multitude there shouldn’t be any serious construction defects.
With a partial development, there are other problems, namely the prerequisites.
I assume that this is a recently completed new development area, where this plot is still available. The seller is the city/municipality?!
The BT has already built several houses there, regardless of in what capacity or role. Since “people” know each other, there is now this option to build with them as well.
If you were to decide on this (1) (why not, it shouldn’t be a tied sale in the purchase 2025, construction contract 2026), he would make you one or two proposals (single-family house, semi-detached house, two-family house), plan with you, and then build the desired DH. Beforehand, you would have purchased the ideal half and the BT/GU possibly the other half, to then sell together. Or the agreement also applies to the second, first to buy the plot, then the semi-detached house, but probably as a tied sale. Doesn’t matter, that shouldn’t be the topic here, just to explain something.
What you can do is (1).
Or you can (2) buy the entire plot yourself. Find a building partner for the second half, then jointly find a GU who builds you your DH. You might end up again with the mentioned BT/GU, could be. But that certainly means + 1 year, if not more.
Buying only an ideal half is legally possible, but in all respects the WEG applies, meaning the signature of both owners is required. You don’t seriously believe the city is keen to constantly be a “plot” partner with you for your decisions, when they actually want to get rid of the plot. In theory, they would then permanently sit on an ideal half, while you plan half a house.
That’s not how sales are done in the construction business. And you don’t want that either.
I have no problems with WEG or ideal division. But you have to be able to communicate as partners who also want that and are equals.
However, I wonder why you reject the BT. He doesn’t seem to be insolvent, has done everything correctly (otherwise he wouldn’t still be commercially involved), and in the multitude there shouldn’t be any serious construction defects.