Transfer property / not married

Could it have to do with the amount of the loan and the "sense of duty" of the bank towards the partner who is not listed in the land register? I mean, if the loan amount cannot be borne by one person alone and both MUST sign the loan, then a note from the bank would be quite appropriate that Partner 1 owns everything and Partner 2 owns nothing, but Partner 2 is still fully liable for the loan...?

Strange, it should be enough for the bank if their own name is in the land register (as a land charge). What do the bankers in the forum say about that?

Could it have to do with the amount of the loan and the bank's "sense of duty" towards the partner who is not in the land register? I mean, if the loan amount cannot be borne by one person alone and both have to sign the loan, then a note from the bank would be quite appropriate, that partner 1 owns everything and partner 2 nothing, but partner 2 is still fully liable for the loan...?

If someone owns everything, how is the bank supposed to seize the salary of the one who owns nothing? Exactly.

So it's not sympathy from the bank, but rather due to the fact that the loan can only be linked to one income, or the second income cannot be easily seized if the first income fails. Yes, the bank would still have the property including the house, but if the loan cannot be serviced from one income, there may not be any loan approval in the first place.

Ultimately depends on the income of the person who officially finances alone.

Best regards Dirk Grafe

If someone owns everything, how is the bank supposed to seize the salary of someone who owns nothing? Exactly.

I don't understand the connection. Seizing a salary is not tied to real estate ownership, is it?

How do you want to get a loan commitment without linking the property to the salary/credit? The financing is secured by the value of the land/house including the income, but this belongs to only one person. After marriage, this may be different, but that is exactly the problem for the banks. They fear (rightly so) that the second income is intended to be included in the calculation to satisfy the loan, but on the other hand, it cannot be garnished in case of doubt if it disappears – for example, in case of separation. The second person simply moves out of the house, they don’t own anything... so how is the bank supposed to get his salary?

In fact, if it comes about, it is a consumer loan, i.e. without collateral.

Or one must simply earn enough to afford the house alone.

Regards
Dirk Grafe

is not garnishable in case of doubt if it - e.g. in case of separation - ceases

If it is gone, it cannot be garnished, of course. But if there is a salary, then it should be garnishable as well. That this is possible (if the loan is not serviced) could be contractually agreed by the bank regardless of the land register. That is my naive assumption. Presumably, the situation "borrower but not listed in the land register" is too absurd and fails at the outset, as you say.

Go to the bank and ask them if they will lend you €150,000 on your salary without any collateral. If yes, congratulations on your income.

If no, you say you want to build unmarried, but the land register remains with your partner. This means for the bank, they should still lend you €150,000 based only on your income, so a consumer loan, because they cannot link the loan to the house. Ergo, they will not lend you the money. The only scenario that comes to my mind would be a guarantee, but for that amount you would then have to bring another property.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe