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

"The closing fees can be deducted from rental income." I would say this: Anyone who still wants to deduct something can get an invoice from me, no problem! But this also makes the interest rate discussion absurd because one would then have to be happy about high interest rates. Ergo, you can put your money aside, invest it in ETFs or something else, and then use it for the owner-occupied property.

Just as the building savings contract is a bet on rising interest rates, the ETF is a bet on rising prices.

People are just different. Some can live well with having some money in the account, others have the inner need to shop until the account is zero at the end of the month. For these people, fixed savings rates in a daily money account or in a building savings contract are better – out of sight, out of mind. Some need security, some also invest money on the stock market for short periods. Everyone as they like.

As I said, building savings contracts are currently pointless in most cases – unless you expect strongly rising interest rates. In this specific case, under certain circumstances and taking tax savings into account, I could see one of the few fields of application for a building savings contract. Personally, I would probably be more of a risk type and save in ETFs. But this cannot really be recommended without reservation given the probably short investment period.

As I see it, rennschnecke has already understood the basic idea of tax saving and apparently can handle money accordingly.

So the only solution left 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 a respective release of the other party after division can take place (each apartment with a land charge and separate financing).

I have to ask again: what advantage does it bring if it is recorded in the notarial purchase contract that the division is planned and a respective release of the other party can take place after the division?

In the end, isn’t it the bank that decides in the following months after the purchase whether each apartment can be secured with a separate land charge?

I have to follow up: what advantage does it bring if it is included in the notarial purchase contract that the division is planned and a respective release of the other party after the division can take place?

In the end, it is the bank that decides in the next few months after the purchase whether each apartment can be secured with a separate land charge, right?

This is preparatory work for the bank, nothing more. Then the bank feels more comfortable.

This is preliminary work for the bank, nothing more. Then the bank feels more comfortable.

Thank you! Tomorrow is the meeting with Interhyp. The first offers in the portal show 1.41% effective interest. However, the Kfw124 is also being offered. This would result in a mixed interest rate of 0.90%. The difference of 0.5% should be noticeable. I hope that the KfW bank agrees to two contracts and a later division. Are there any reports of experience regarding this?

Interhyp is of the opinion that there will be no bank that will make two contracts without division. His suggestion: The parents buy the house 100% with two loan contracts: - Loan 1 with KFW 124 + bank - Loan 2 with a variable interest rate of 2.5% After the tenant moves out (9 months notice period), the division could take place. The parents then sell one apartment to the daughter for amount X (value of Loan 2). Real estate transfer tax is waived. The parents could then repay Loan 2 with the variable interest rate. It all sounds plausible, what do you say?

Notary fees are simply incurred twice in full for the apartment. But they would have occurred at least partially with the other option as well.

What I’m just wondering is why the parents are allowed to terminate the lease then? It can hardly be for personal use since they already occupy part of it. On the other hand, an acquisition by the woman would be a valid reason for a personal use termination. I would have logically expected it the other way around.