Transfer house ownership -> general questions

I think there is a huge difference between leaving something to my child-in-law and creating something together as a couple - sorry.

We are building a house together - partly my inheritance is in there (because I owned the land and also more equity), we will also reflect that in a prenuptial agreement, but otherwise, it is our joint "baby."

I don’t want anything from his inheritance (the parents have an apartment) and my inheritance is my inheritance (which is expressed by the fact that I simply own more shares of the house). If he ever uses his inheritance someday (but I wish my parents-in-law a long life!) to pay off the house, our shares of the house will shift in his favor.

What we have/will earn beyond that together belongs to both of us equally.

I find it unsettling when children-in-law inherit something. You leave an inheritance to the children and that is the capital they bring in. What you earn TOGETHER in a partnership beyond that is shared fairly. What each person brings stays theirs. All of this only matters in case of a breakup - otherwise it doesn’t matter anyway.

I do understand the approach very well, but the question should always be when one begins to "build" something together. And if it is a partner's parental home—when does one "deserve" to have ownership of it? After one child? After three? After 10 years of caring for the parents-in-law?

Edit: I also want to point out the different perspectives. When you inherit, you only do so to your own child. When you receive an inheritance, on the other hand, you don’t see it as so strict (or one should at least ask oneself why, if one absolutely does not want to share with the partner).

I stick to my point: the inheritance remains preserved for everyone. If people can move together into an inherited house, that is initially a big advantage – you save on rent. That already has its benefits. If you live there longer, you will be involved in its maintenance in some way. Whether through labor or capital for upcoming, necessary renovations, expansions, extensions, etc. From then on, it is something shared – even if, for example, because children are involved, only one “pays” because the other takes over the (unpaid) family management. In the case of a separation, this share is then paid out half. Why should someone receive anything from the previously existing capital? After all, they didn’t do anything for it. If it were not a house, but, for example, valuable jewelry, I wouldn’t say in the event of a divorce: but at least one of the earrings should belong to me! After all, I had children!

We are building a house together - part of it comes from my inheritance (because I had the land and also more equity), and we will also reflect this in a prenuptial agreement, but otherwise it is our joint "baby."

I don’t want anything from his inheritance (his parents have an apartment) and my inheritance is my inheritance (which is expressed by the fact that I simply own more shares in the house). If he ever uses his inheritance (though I wish my in-laws a long life!) to pay off the house, our shares in the house will shift in his favor.

What we earn together on top of that belongs to us equally.

I find it strange when in-laws inherit something. You leave it to the children, and that is the capital they bring in. What is earned TOGETHER in a partnership beyond that is shared fairly. What each person brings remains theirs. This only matters in the event of a separation - otherwise it doesn’t matter anyway.

How did you do it in the land register then? 50/50 or do you own more? If he then brings in his inheritance, do you change the shares or how does it work for you?

I am listed as the majority owner in the land register; the rest will be regulated by the marriage contract. You can also do quite a bit there (e.g., stipulate how payments are made in the event of a separation).

There has been talk more than once about transferring the house. Does that even make sense if one never wants to live there oneself? Because with the death of the parents, eventually all the taxes and charges become due...

In your mid-50s, you are not close to death, unless both have an incurable illness that causes premature death. But then you probably would have mentioned that? Between 55 and death, there may still be 2-3 generations. Employees usually still have to work 12 years at this age, others only build their house starting with this age. That the parents are already talking about it now… okay, that may be their business. As is well known, many things can be arranged. But you don’t have to already reckon with their death and the consequences now. Allowance and inheritance law aside. You can also tell them that they shouldn’t separate from all their assets yet but should make the best of their life. If necessary, to cash in the house, their house ;)