Two-family house - Two parties, two financing loans?

Hello,

my partner wants to buy a two-family house with her parents. Currently, her parents and a third party are living in the house as tenants. A division into condominiums has not yet taken place.
The purchase will be made 50/50, meaning parents / partner. The tenants of the third party are to be given notice after the purchase, and my partner will move into the then vacant apartment.

If the apartment has not been converted into condominiums during the tenant's rental period, there is no three-year blocking period after the purchase regarding owner-occupation.
After the tenant has moved out, a division is to take place so that, legally, there are two condominiums. In my opinion, this is the only sensible way to create a legally clean separation, also in the event of a later sale of an apartment or an unexpected insolvency of one party. Neither is planned, but you never know. Better safe than sorry.

Offers for financing are still being obtained.
However, is it fundamentally possible that the parents and my partner each acquire 50% of the house and each party has an independent loan agreement for 50%, even if the house has not yet been divided? Do banks play along here?

Regards

Is it fundamentally possible for the parents and my partner to each acquire 50% of the house and for each party to have an independent loan agreement for 50%, even if the house has not yet been divided? Do banks go along with this?

It will work. But only if both finance with the same bank (although even then there will be some institutions that have reservations). All online banks/direct banks are out - this only works with a regular commercial bank or the local savings bank/cooperative bank.

It will work. But only if both finance with the same bank (and even then there will be some institutions that have reservations). All internet banks/direct banks are excluded - this only works with a regular commercial bank or the local savings bank/cooperative bank.

Thank you. Financing with the same bank is not a problem, but is even preferred. Is that because no partition declaration has been made yet, or because the structure seems rather unusual?

Is it because no declaration of division has been made yet or because the structure seems rather unusual?

Unusual financing. Party A takes out a loan, but the entire property must serve as collateral (including Party B's share), since you practically cannot auction off a fraction of a building. Party A’s share alone is worthless to a bank. If Party A obtains financing from Bank A and Party B also provides their share (= signs a declaration of purpose for the land charge), Party B can no longer go to another bank. That bank sees that the building is already encumbered with a senior land charge and is therefore practically unpledgeable for any other bank than Bank A.

So the only solution remaining is Bank A for both parties; then everything is liable for everything. Please remember to have it contractually recorded that the division of the house is planned and that a respective release of the other party can occur after the division (each apartment with its own land charge and financing).

So the only solution left is Bank A for both parties, then everything is liable for everything. Please remember to contractually include that the division of the house is planned and a respective release of the other party can occur after the division (each apartment with a land charge and financing).

Would that mean that after a possible division, party A would no longer be liable for party B (and vice versa)? Because that is exactly the goal, that both parties act completely independently and do not guarantee for each other should there be payment difficulties or similar. That was the original goal, having two condominiums and each party financing one apartment. Thus, financing could have been done here without liability.

Unfortunately, the division cannot take place directly at the time of purchase, because then a lock-up period of 3 years applies for the current tenant, as far as I understand.

Would that mean that after a possible division, Party A would no longer be liable for Party B (and vice versa)?

Exactly.