Well, these are the regulations according to the Building Code. However, they only apply if all entitled persons have renounced the inheritance AND there is no heir. Because of the property, it applies that the burial must also be paid from the estate (only after that or after settling debts etc. is it determined how much the inheritance actually is).See: what obligations do they have despite renouncing the inheritance: burial costs and household clearance must be borne despite renunciation.
Okay, these are the regulations according to the Building Code. However, they only apply if ALL entitled parties have renounced the inheritance AND there is no heir. Because in the case of real estate, it applies that the funeral must also be paid from the estate (only after that or after settling debts, etc., it is determined how high the inheritance actually is).
I assume that the land was leased? Is there a lease or usage contract? Maybe something is stated there?!
Here are several problems. First of all, there is a main problem. Bureaucracy is complicated. Law even more so. You have to look very carefully and understand the legal situation here. Alternatively, get a lawyer involved and listen very carefully to them. I am not a lawyer. But I have dealt enough with inheritance matters to already get a bad feeling here. 1. Compulsory heirs are also heirs! They too can or must renounce the inheritance in order to be out. Example: Person X has persons Y and Z as children. There are no other persons in the statutory succession. The inheritance of person X is over-indebted. He has disinherited person Y beforehand and appointed person Z as the sole heir. No other heirs exist. If Y does not renounce the inheritance, Y receives as compulsory portion 25% of the debts. (Oh, and if person Z renounces the inheritance but person Y does not, Y inherits all debts.) This is a basic principle of inheritance law. If this is not understood, the next step must be to go to a lawyer and hand the matters over to them. 2. The compulsory portion is measured by the total inheritance. If the inheritance is over-indebted, you inherit debts. Therefore, "I do not have to participate" is such a dangerous half-truth. It is true: If the inheritance is not over-indebted, the compulsory portion would arise from the inheritance after clearing the liabilities (possibly demolition costs). But if the liabilities exceed any assets, you inherit debts. 3. There are always situations called "joint and several liability." I fear this could apply here. Like "the community of heirs is responsible for the liability; one heir is sued and then has to take care of compensation from the other heirs themselves." Whether this is the case, I do not know - the situation is too unclear. I have had such situations in acquaintances’ circles with roughly comparable cases (legacy burdens, in which then one heir was sued with joint and several liability. Ironically, the highest earner, who had been "disinherited.") 4. Who has to bear the demolition costs here will ultimately be decided by a court if no amicable agreement is found. And possibly not even in the first instance. Even in apparently crystal-clear matters, court proceedings can become interesting. In short, as a non-lawyer I would advise very different questions: 1. Could the inheritance overall be over-indebted; or, after deducting liabilities, be less than €10,000? If yes, I would renounce the inheritance. 2. Is the value of the compulsory portion less than your own savings rate for at least one year? If yes, I would renounce the inheritance. 3. Can an amicable agreement be reached? If no, again the value of the assumed compulsory portion is at stake. If less than 3 annual savings rates, I would again renounce the inheritance. More than 5 annual savings rates: Find the best possible lawyer and prepare for a long process. Only in the period in between would I personally be uncertain. If an amicable agreement can be reached, it also means that you cannot rely solely on the statutory situation – which would in doubt need to be decided by a court. The combination of a legally complex situation combined with dangerous half-knowledge can unfortunately become very expensive very quickly. I have met enough people who completely ruined themselves through problematic inheritances. Again, because I find this really critical: Even as a compulsory heir, you are legally an heir with all the resulting advantages and disadvantages. Only the share of the inheritance is halved!since I am not the heir I do not have to renounce anything! As a compulsory heir, I do not have to participate in these demolition costs. My original question was WHO has to bear the costs for a possible demolition. The heir or the owner of the land on which the containers are built. Please address THIS or refrain from comments. Also, please refrain from accusatory, judgmental comments and remain factual. Thank you.
There are several problems here.
First of all, there is one main problem. Bureaucracy is complicated. Law even more so. You have to look very closely here and understand the legal situation. Alternatively, get a lawyer involved and listen very carefully to them.
I am not a lawyer. But I have dealt enough with inheritance matters to already get a bad feeling here.
1. Compulsory portion beneficiaries are also heirs! They can or must also renounce the inheritance to be released from it.
Example: Person X has Person Y and Person Z as children. No other persons exist in the statutory line of inheritance. Person X’s estate is over-indebted. He previously disinherited Person Y and appointed Person Z as sole heir. There are no other heirs. If Y does not renounce the inheritance, Y receives 25% of the debts as compulsory portion. (Oh, and if Person Z renounces the inheritance but Person Y does not, Y inherits all the debts.)
This is a basic principle of inheritance law.
If this is not understood, the next step must be to go to a lawyer and hand the matters over to them.
2. The compulsory portion is calculated on the total inheritance. If the estate is over-indebted, you inherit debts. Therefore, “I don’t have to participate” is such a dangerous half-truth.
It is true: If the estate is not over-indebted, the compulsory portion would then be due from the inheritance after settlement of the liabilities (possibly demolition costs). But if the liabilities exceed any assets, you inherit debts.
3. There are always situations called “joint and several liability.” I fear this could apply here. Something like “the community of heirs is responsible for liabilities; one heir is approached and must then deal with balancing it out with the other heirs himself.”
I do not know if this is the case – the situation is too unclear for that. I have had such situations in my circle of acquaintances with roughly comparable circumstances (legacy burdens, where then one heir was approached on a joint and several basis. Ironically, the highest earner who had been "disinherited.")
4. Who has to cover the demolition costs here will – if no amicable agreement is found – ultimately be decided by a court. And possibly not even in the first instance. Even in seemingly crystal-clear matters, court proceedings can become interesting.
This means in summary I would, as a non-lawyer, advise very different questions:
1. Could the estate be over-indebted overall; or less than €10,000 after deducting liabilities?
If yes, I would renounce the inheritance.
2. Is the value of the compulsory portion below your own savings rate for at least one year?
If yes, I would renounce the inheritance.
3. Can an amicable agreement be reached?
If no, the value of the accepted compulsory portion is again at stake.
Less than three annual savings rates I would again renounce the inheritance.
More than five annual savings rates: Find the best possible lawyer and prepare for a long process.
Only in the period in between would I personally be uncertain.
If an amicable agreement can be reached, that also means you cannot rely solely on the legal situation – that would have to be clarified in court if necessary.
The combination of a legally complex situation combined with dangerous half-knowledge can unfortunately become extremely expensive very quickly. I have met enough people who have completely ruined themselves through problematic inheritances.
Again, because I really find this very critical:
Even as a compulsory portion beneficiary, you are legally an heir with all the resulting advantages and disadvantages. Only the share of the inheritance is halved!