Good morning,
I’m new here :-)
I hope I have chosen the right category.
I’m not very familiar with this and have a specific question—I hope someone can answer it.
Here’s the situation:
My boyfriend (27)
His brother (24)
Their parents (around mid-50s)
The brother already has a building plot next to the parents’ property. At that time, my boyfriend and I were not asked. It wasn’t possible either, since he finished his training late and simply didn’t have money for a building plot.
The parents want us to move into the house at some point. For me, that’s unthinkable and absolutely out of the question. My boyfriend accepts this.
There has been talk several times about transferring the house ownership. Does that even make sense if you never want to live there yourself? When the parents pass away, won’t all the taxes and fees become due eventually?
Or am I misunderstanding something?
We wouldn’t have to pay out the brother; the parents would cover that.
By the way: we’re not married yet, but plan to be eventually.
Best regards,
Steinbock123
I’m new here :-)
I hope I have chosen the right category.
I’m not very familiar with this and have a specific question—I hope someone can answer it.
Here’s the situation:
My boyfriend (27)
His brother (24)
Their parents (around mid-50s)
The brother already has a building plot next to the parents’ property. At that time, my boyfriend and I were not asked. It wasn’t possible either, since he finished his training late and simply didn’t have money for a building plot.
The parents want us to move into the house at some point. For me, that’s unthinkable and absolutely out of the question. My boyfriend accepts this.
There has been talk several times about transferring the house ownership. Does that even make sense if you never want to live there yourself? When the parents pass away, won’t all the taxes and fees become due eventually?
Or am I misunderstanding something?
We wouldn’t have to pay out the brother; the parents would cover that.
By the way: we’re not married yet, but plan to be eventually.
Best regards,
Steinbock123
Actually, it is good to give generously from the heart.
If I put myself in the parents’ shoes, that’s how it is. There is a house, a piece of land, and two sons. One son already receives the building plot and some extra money. The other gets the house, and in good time, so that even in the case of long-term care, the state cannot claim it. As parents, I would secure a right of residence for both—lifelong. I would also ensure that I am supported in case of needing care, and then the property is transferred. That is completely normal. Karsten
If I put myself in the parents’ shoes, that’s how it is. There is a house, a piece of land, and two sons. One son already receives the building plot and some extra money. The other gets the house, and in good time, so that even in the case of long-term care, the state cannot claim it. As parents, I would secure a right of residence for both—lifelong. I would also ensure that I am supported in case of needing care, and then the property is transferred. That is completely normal. Karsten
Nordlys schrieb:
As parents, I would secure a lifelong right of residence for both of us. I would ensure that I receive support in case of needing care, and then the property would be transferred accordingly. That is completely normal. KarstenFair enough.
Now just imagine your house has an additional floor where your son and his wife move in. Your wife passes away at some point. Then your son dies. After a year of mourning, the daughter-in-law brings someone home who is good for nothing but criminal activities. For weeks, life goes on like this in your... uh... former house. Eventually, you start feeling like a victim of harassment, even mistreated... and that can also be a consequence of a right of residence.
One could also imagine an unexpected extreme increase in the property's value (such as a new highway interchange nearby), which would create a very unequal situation among the heirs. One child ends up with the valuable land, while the other receives the now worthless remaining part. What happens then?
No, inheritance arrangements like that can cause too much damage. They can destroy families.
Why not do it this way: both children get 50% each in the land register, regardless of who lives there. Only after the death of both parents can new agreements be made... is it possible to have something like this legally secured by a notary?
No, inheritance arrangements like that can cause too much damage. They can destroy families.
Why not do it this way: both children get 50% each in the land register, regardless of who lives there. Only after the death of both parents can new agreements be made... is it possible to have something like this legally secured by a notary?
Climbee schrieb:
The original poster lives in Bavaria, where a typical single-family house with sufficient land often easily exceeds 400,000€ (about $430,000), so I think it’s very reasonable for the parents to start thinking about this now.The 400,000€ (about $430,000) limit applies per donor (and donee). So in this case, properties worth up to 800,000€ (about $860,000) are allowed (or 840,000€ (about $900,000) if the original poster is included).Climbee schrieb:
The tax office and inheritance law don’t care whether you actually live there or not.Not entirely. If the living area does not exceed 200 sqm (about 2,150 sq ft) and you move in “immediately” (whatever that means) and then live there for at least 10 years, you inherit real estate from your parents completely tax-free. The value doesn’t matter then.
I understand that the 200 sqm (2,150 sq ft) limit no longer applies. A family home that is owner-occupied is tax-exempt.
I am with Nordlys. It’s better to give generously and willingly.
Just because there may be changes in value in the future doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pass on assets now.
It is most helpful at the time when the children actually need it (land, house, money...). At that point, I would recommend a balanced distribution. What happens in the future is unpredictable.
Putting the children 50/50 on the land register often leads to more potential conflicts.
There are several ways to secure this properly through contracts.
This applies equally to couples. For example, my wife is not listed on the land register. I pay for the entire house and land. If I added her, it would be considered a gift and might be taxable depending on the amount. If I die, as it stands today, it is tax-free.
In case of separation, she is protected (notarial agreement). Additionally, she has a secure job (civil servant) and currently finances a large condominium that she rents out.
I am with Nordlys. It’s better to give generously and willingly.
Just because there may be changes in value in the future doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pass on assets now.
It is most helpful at the time when the children actually need it (land, house, money...). At that point, I would recommend a balanced distribution. What happens in the future is unpredictable.
Putting the children 50/50 on the land register often leads to more potential conflicts.
There are several ways to secure this properly through contracts.
This applies equally to couples. For example, my wife is not listed on the land register. I pay for the entire house and land. If I added her, it would be considered a gift and might be taxable depending on the amount. If I die, as it stands today, it is tax-free.
In case of separation, she is protected (notarial agreement). Additionally, she has a secure job (civil servant) and currently finances a large condominium that she rents out.