D
Dresdnerin5 Oct 2024 22:52Dear community,
we are currently facing a situation that is also affecting our health. Therefore, I am seeking advice, help, and tips here.
Here is what happened. A relative who owned more than half of a house and the land has passed away. I am one of the heirs. The heirs are in agreement among themselves, and no one wants to take advantage of the others. In that respect, everything is fine.
However, the party that owns the other part of the house and land (less than half) is not an heir but, like the deceased, is registered in the land registry. The apartment that belongs to this person has been vacant and unrented for many years. The other apartment is occupied by the deceased’s wife. It is a 100-year-old, unrenovated two-family house. The plot is about 1000sqm (10,764 sq ft). There are no encumbrances such as loans or anything similar. The house fully belongs to both living parties.
There was an oral agreement between the deceased and another person who is entitled to inherit the unoccupied apartment but does not live there, that a payment would be made so that the deceased’s share, i.e., the heirs’ share, would belong entirely to them. A significant amount of money was transferred from the deceased to the person entitled to inherit the vacant apartment. However, the people who own the vacant apartment are still alive, so the inheritance event has not yet occurred.
We, the heirs of the occupied apartment, have asked the other party to gift us the remaining share since the payment for the outstanding inheritance was already made. However, this party now wants additional money to complete the “gift.” This money is not available and was not agreed upon. Please refrain from comments such as “Why isn’t this in writing?” This was not within my power to arrange. The deceased trusted the rest of the family wrongly.
There is also no appraisal for the house. The other part of the family exaggerates the value excessively. Should we have the house forcibly appraised? According to the land valuation unit value, the plot is worth around 350,000€ (approximately 370,000 USD). The house is about 220sqm (2,368 sq ft).
We had a construction company inspect the house, and they basically said it needs a complete renovation. The roof needs to be raised, the roof insulation is damp, the floor between living levels is hollow and thus uninsulated, the roof has 20-year-old bitumen shingles, there are cracks in the walls, the electrical system needs to be completely replaced, and all heating pipes must be renewed, as well as 50% of the windows. My husband and I, who are supposed to take over the house on the deceased’s wish (no will), have no construction skills and are time-constrained due to work and several children in daycare age. The construction company estimates the renovation/modernization cost at around 250,000€ (approximately 265,000 USD) plus or minus.
The amount now requested by the person who has already been paid, combined with the money they have already received and the expected construction costs, far exceeds our borrowing capacity.
Additionally, there is a partition agreement between the two apartment owners. This only specifies the division of living spaces and not the division of the land. According to our lawyer, each square meter belongs jointly to both parties. Therefore, only the apartments can be sold separately, and a usage agreement would have to be made for the garden. Nothing can be done in the garden without the other party’s permission.
Has anyone experienced a similar situation or can offer any advice?
I am grateful for any constructive contributions.
As mentioned, this situation is taking a toll on our health, and a solution is urgently needed.
Thank you very much, and have a nice evening.
we are currently facing a situation that is also affecting our health. Therefore, I am seeking advice, help, and tips here.
Here is what happened. A relative who owned more than half of a house and the land has passed away. I am one of the heirs. The heirs are in agreement among themselves, and no one wants to take advantage of the others. In that respect, everything is fine.
However, the party that owns the other part of the house and land (less than half) is not an heir but, like the deceased, is registered in the land registry. The apartment that belongs to this person has been vacant and unrented for many years. The other apartment is occupied by the deceased’s wife. It is a 100-year-old, unrenovated two-family house. The plot is about 1000sqm (10,764 sq ft). There are no encumbrances such as loans or anything similar. The house fully belongs to both living parties.
There was an oral agreement between the deceased and another person who is entitled to inherit the unoccupied apartment but does not live there, that a payment would be made so that the deceased’s share, i.e., the heirs’ share, would belong entirely to them. A significant amount of money was transferred from the deceased to the person entitled to inherit the vacant apartment. However, the people who own the vacant apartment are still alive, so the inheritance event has not yet occurred.
We, the heirs of the occupied apartment, have asked the other party to gift us the remaining share since the payment for the outstanding inheritance was already made. However, this party now wants additional money to complete the “gift.” This money is not available and was not agreed upon. Please refrain from comments such as “Why isn’t this in writing?” This was not within my power to arrange. The deceased trusted the rest of the family wrongly.
There is also no appraisal for the house. The other part of the family exaggerates the value excessively. Should we have the house forcibly appraised? According to the land valuation unit value, the plot is worth around 350,000€ (approximately 370,000 USD). The house is about 220sqm (2,368 sq ft).
We had a construction company inspect the house, and they basically said it needs a complete renovation. The roof needs to be raised, the roof insulation is damp, the floor between living levels is hollow and thus uninsulated, the roof has 20-year-old bitumen shingles, there are cracks in the walls, the electrical system needs to be completely replaced, and all heating pipes must be renewed, as well as 50% of the windows. My husband and I, who are supposed to take over the house on the deceased’s wish (no will), have no construction skills and are time-constrained due to work and several children in daycare age. The construction company estimates the renovation/modernization cost at around 250,000€ (approximately 265,000 USD) plus or minus.
The amount now requested by the person who has already been paid, combined with the money they have already received and the expected construction costs, far exceeds our borrowing capacity.
Additionally, there is a partition agreement between the two apartment owners. This only specifies the division of living spaces and not the division of the land. According to our lawyer, each square meter belongs jointly to both parties. Therefore, only the apartments can be sold separately, and a usage agreement would have to be made for the garden. Nothing can be done in the garden without the other party’s permission.
Has anyone experienced a similar situation or can offer any advice?
I am grateful for any constructive contributions.
As mentioned, this situation is taking a toll on our health, and a solution is urgently needed.
Thank you very much, and have a nice evening.
N
nordanney5 Oct 2024 23:46Dresdnerin schrieb:
As I said, it’s really affecting our health You inherit some kind of estate, and yet it’s affecting your health that you received an inheritance. I wouldn’t want to be that confused.
1. No written agreements = officially nothing is documented.
2. So there are effectively two apartments in a run-down building, one side owned by the group of heirs and the other (smaller) side by a third party.
3. The deceased’s wife, who is a co-heir, wants to continue living there?
4. Declaration of division? So there is a formal homeowners’ association (in which case you heirs could pass majority decisions to really cause trouble for the third party with various resolutions).
5. I see the following options:
- Buy out the third party based on an external appraisal. You heirs should be closely involved in choosing the appraiser to influence the price in your favor.
- Partition sale by auction. Before that, sign a rental agreement with the deceased’s wife, since a purchase does not terminate a lease (the only drawback: a landlord’s own use termination if the house is bought by a third party). But usually one party wants sole ownership. Thus, this mostly equals the first option.
- Do nothing. No stress, everything stays as is.
Apart from that, I don’t really understand your description of the situation or the health-related problem. You should write everything down clearly and explain why the inheritance is causing health issues. What you wrote is pretty confusing. Please use bullet points, maybe code names, shares, who owns what and how much.
Dresdnerin schrieb:
My husband and I, who are supposed to take over the house at the deceased’s request (no will), That’s something I really don’t understand. You are an uninvolved third party and have nothing to do with the whole inheritance? How come you say
Dresdnerin schrieb:
I am one of the heirs. We heirs That’s what I mean by confusion. A request but no will. Then who are you that you inherit? Are the deceased’s wife and/or children gifting you their shares? Then you need to consider the house value anyway to calculate gift tax.
So please write everything down in a way that uninvolved third parties (=us here in the forum) can understand the situation.
Dresdnerin schrieb:
Please avoid comments like "Why isn't there anything in writing." This was beyond my control to arrange. It won’t help. What matters are the facts. You are not the ones deciding the inheritance or gifting money to someone—that was up to the deceased. You are _only_ heirs.
As heirs or an heir community, you have to accept this sometimes.
And yes, why should an heir be restricted in terms of health? Could it have been much more? I assume you are simply overwhelmed, and instead of handing it over to an administrator, you are upset about the situation, condition, and all the “what ifs.”
Dresdnerin schrieb:
A substantial amount from the deceased person was transferred to the person entitled to inherit the unoccupied apartment. Person 3? Let’s call her Gudrun?! Entitled to inherit from Brunhilde, who is still alive but does not live in the apartment? (Whether she lives there or not, whether Brunhilde has heirs or not, that is completely irrelevant here, right?)
Dresdnerin schrieb:
…but does not live there, a purely verbal agreement that a payout would be made to that effect. So that everything belongs to the deceased person or us survivors. ?
Was there supposed to be a payout to Brunhilde or has one been made, so that everything would again belong to Bruno, the deceased? But the payment was not made. So that’s a non-issue. Completely irrelevant to this matter—what should have been, could have been, but wasn’t.
Dresdnerin schrieb:
asked to gift the remainder to us heirs But this did not happen, right?
Dresdnerin schrieb:
The deceased person mistakenly trusted the rest of the family. Do you see it that way? Is that the case?
I’ve already hinted at this above: of course, it’s disappointing when a relative gives someone an advantage by giving them money—often a large sum. It may not have been the right decision, especially if the relative—in this case Bruno—was already quite old and a bit absent-minded or too trusting. But usually, things are as they are. And had there been regular contact, someone would probably have found out about it in due time. But now, it is how it is.
Dresdnerin schrieb:
Another part of the family is wildly exaggerating the value. ?
Dresdnerin schrieb:
Furthermore, there is a declaration of division between the two condominium owners. Yes, one owns 60%, the other 40%. The land is divided as an undivided share.
Dresdnerin schrieb:
Therefore, only the individual apartments can be sold, and a usage agreement would be required for the garden. Nothing can be done in the garden without asking the other for permission. Yes, of course. You as the heirs own 60%—specifically Bruno’s apartment. Nothing more. For condominiums in multi-family houses or some townhouses it’s similar—but those can also be sold.
Dresdnerin schrieb:
But the money is not available and was not agreed upon. No, of course nothing was agreed upon. It’s never agreed that money will be missing.
What one does, or what others do, or what can be done when money is lacking: take out a loan—either to pay out the other heirs or/and to renovate the house.
You have to be honest: you are an heir community, but none of you really have the funds to do anything with the property.
Backlog of renovations turns it into a zero-value asset on a property that could appear on the market.
From the two-family house, you as the heirs own 60%, Brunhilde owns 40%.
I put it like this: either offer Brunhilde the 60%, someone from the heir community takes out a loan, or sell the 60%.
P.S. This is a personal opinion and may contain errors.
Dresdnerin schrieb:
The total amount now being claimed by the person who has actually already received a payment, combined with the money they have already gotten and what we would have in construction costs, far exceeds our borrowing capacity. Your creditworthiness and debt service capability are only "half the battle"; what weighs more, in my opinion, is that the property, as described, tends to be a rundown building that would not have an adequate mortgage lending value.
nordanney schrieb:
- Partition auction. Before that, you should still sign a lease agreement with the deceased’s spouse, because a purchase does not terminate a lease (the only drawback: a landlord’s own use notice if the house is bought by a third party). But usually, one party wants to become the sole owner. In that case, this basically amounts to the first option mentioned. Just to force the stubborn co-owners to confront the situation—that, as far as I can understand from the story, would be the option that comes to my mind first. I can only agree even more strongly with:
nordanney schrieb:
So please write everything down in a way that uninvolved third parties (= us here in the forum) can understand the story. I don’t even understand how non-heirs of the ownership share can possibly be in a position to decide on cooperation (or refusal thereof). And then, how can there be explicit separate references to one or the other apartment if—on the other hand—there is supposedly no declaration of division?
As I understand it, legally the survivors of the main owner hold both the apartment used by the widow and the vacant apartment within that share. Incidentally, a vacancy lasting several years damages the structure of the entire property.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
D
Dresdnerin6 Oct 2024 00:59@nordanney
In my post, I asked not to make judgments. You have no idea what we have been through, so comments like “I wish I were that clueless” are unnecessary. You don’t know the background or anything. I asked for constructive help. So please either help constructively or don’t comment.
Losing someone very young and suddenly is terrible. Even worse when the rest of the family exploits the person’s death for financial gain.
You are right about the confusion, though. It’s hard to explain, but I’ll try:
- Person A dies (no will)
- He leaves heirs A1, A2 (me), and A3
- On the property title, both Person A and Person B are listed
- A owns more than half
- Persons C and A would inherit 50/50% from B in case of B’s death
- A2 and A3 now take A’s place in the legal inheritance because A is deceased
- Thus, in the potential event of B’s death (no will), C would inherit 50%, and A2 and A3 would inherit 25% each
- Part of the property was a gift from Person B to Person A made 20 years ago
- Person C wants to be paid by Person A for his share of B’s inheritance so that A then owns everything or now the surviving heirs do
- Person C lives far from the property and has no interest in it
- Person C receives the agreed payment from A; Person B is informed
- There is no written proof beyond a bank statement confirming the payment
- Now Person A dies
- A1, A2, and A3 ask B to formalize the gift; B wants to do this as well
- However, C vetoes and wants the same amount again as was already paid; B agrees and will only formalize the gift once the additional payment is made
- Person B’s residential unit has been empty for over 10 years, neither inhabited nor rented out
- Person B contributes nothing to the costs or upkeep/repairs of the property
- If A1, A2, and A3 do not pay C again, B wants to sell her share of the property
- This way, B and C would receive money
- A1, A2, and A3 do not want B to sell her share and bring strangers into the house
- B is old and ill and wants to get money for C, who has large debts
- Additionally, A asked B and C on his deathbed to confirm the agreement and wished that A2 would receive the entire estate; A1 and A3 would have other equivalent inheritance shares and also have no interest in the “fixer-upper”
- B originally received the property as a full gift before A and C became involved
- It is damaging to health because we are paying for something we can’t use, with ongoing costs for everything
- It is also upsetting because C didn’t have to make the deal with A if he wanted more money
- Instead, C is now exploiting A’s death and saying afterward that he wants more
The house is currently in a condition where no more than two people could live there. Part of it has been an unfinished shell for 30 years. Therefore, I couldn’t move in with my family without investing at least €250,000 (about $270,000) (see note below on currency conversion, if any). With the additional payment to party C, I would need to borrow more than €300,000 (about $323,000). And this is with inflation, an economic crisis, and no increase in salaries for me or my husband.
We don’t want a forced sale by partition (partition auction / forced sale), nor a partial sale, and we don’t want nothing to happen either because the house currently stands completely empty and its potential is wasted. At that point, it would be better to sell everything.
At number 5, you said the amount of a payout could be influenced by a well-chosen appraiser for one’s own purposes. How is that supposed to work? Doesn’t every appraiser prepare the same kind of appraisal?
Yes, and after A’s death, all other parties moved out of the house. The wife (A1) cannot maintain the 220 square meter (2,368 square feet) house without any payments from B. B currently pays nothing, and the wife of A (now all heirs) carry all the burden. B and C want money, B is old and sick, and C has large debts. So A1, A2, and A3 are the family’s scapegoats. Especially A3, who is just in their early 20s and too young to make or assess such decisions.
B and C also think no investment in the house is necessary. So we can’t avoid an appraisal, right?
In an initial legal consultation, we were advised not to wait for B’s inheritance to take effect. That was originally my idea because A2 and A3 would then inherit further shares of the house. But the lawyer said C could persuade B to make a will that disadvantages A2 and A3. The compulsory portion we would still be entitled to would then be very small.
I hope this explanation helps anyone understand the situation better.
Thank you for any further information and replies!
In my post, I asked not to make judgments. You have no idea what we have been through, so comments like “I wish I were that clueless” are unnecessary. You don’t know the background or anything. I asked for constructive help. So please either help constructively or don’t comment.
Losing someone very young and suddenly is terrible. Even worse when the rest of the family exploits the person’s death for financial gain.
You are right about the confusion, though. It’s hard to explain, but I’ll try:
- Person A dies (no will)
- He leaves heirs A1, A2 (me), and A3
- On the property title, both Person A and Person B are listed
- A owns more than half
- Persons C and A would inherit 50/50% from B in case of B’s death
- A2 and A3 now take A’s place in the legal inheritance because A is deceased
- Thus, in the potential event of B’s death (no will), C would inherit 50%, and A2 and A3 would inherit 25% each
- Part of the property was a gift from Person B to Person A made 20 years ago
- Person C wants to be paid by Person A for his share of B’s inheritance so that A then owns everything or now the surviving heirs do
- Person C lives far from the property and has no interest in it
- Person C receives the agreed payment from A; Person B is informed
- There is no written proof beyond a bank statement confirming the payment
- Now Person A dies
- A1, A2, and A3 ask B to formalize the gift; B wants to do this as well
- However, C vetoes and wants the same amount again as was already paid; B agrees and will only formalize the gift once the additional payment is made
- Person B’s residential unit has been empty for over 10 years, neither inhabited nor rented out
- Person B contributes nothing to the costs or upkeep/repairs of the property
- If A1, A2, and A3 do not pay C again, B wants to sell her share of the property
- This way, B and C would receive money
- A1, A2, and A3 do not want B to sell her share and bring strangers into the house
- B is old and ill and wants to get money for C, who has large debts
- Additionally, A asked B and C on his deathbed to confirm the agreement and wished that A2 would receive the entire estate; A1 and A3 would have other equivalent inheritance shares and also have no interest in the “fixer-upper”
- B originally received the property as a full gift before A and C became involved
- It is damaging to health because we are paying for something we can’t use, with ongoing costs for everything
- It is also upsetting because C didn’t have to make the deal with A if he wanted more money
- Instead, C is now exploiting A’s death and saying afterward that he wants more
The house is currently in a condition where no more than two people could live there. Part of it has been an unfinished shell for 30 years. Therefore, I couldn’t move in with my family without investing at least €250,000 (about $270,000) (see note below on currency conversion, if any). With the additional payment to party C, I would need to borrow more than €300,000 (about $323,000). And this is with inflation, an economic crisis, and no increase in salaries for me or my husband.
We don’t want a forced sale by partition (partition auction / forced sale), nor a partial sale, and we don’t want nothing to happen either because the house currently stands completely empty and its potential is wasted. At that point, it would be better to sell everything.
At number 5, you said the amount of a payout could be influenced by a well-chosen appraiser for one’s own purposes. How is that supposed to work? Doesn’t every appraiser prepare the same kind of appraisal?
Yes, and after A’s death, all other parties moved out of the house. The wife (A1) cannot maintain the 220 square meter (2,368 square feet) house without any payments from B. B currently pays nothing, and the wife of A (now all heirs) carry all the burden. B and C want money, B is old and sick, and C has large debts. So A1, A2, and A3 are the family’s scapegoats. Especially A3, who is just in their early 20s and too young to make or assess such decisions.
B and C also think no investment in the house is necessary. So we can’t avoid an appraisal, right?
In an initial legal consultation, we were advised not to wait for B’s inheritance to take effect. That was originally my idea because A2 and A3 would then inherit further shares of the house. But the lawyer said C could persuade B to make a will that disadvantages A2 and A3. The compulsory portion we would still be entitled to would then be very small.
I hope this explanation helps anyone understand the situation better.
Thank you for any further information and replies!
11ant schrieb:
But isn’t there supposed to be no declaration of division (?) Why, there is one after all!
Dresdnerin schrieb:
Moreover, there is a declaration of division between the owners of the two residential units. ..
Dresdnerin schrieb:
Losing someone very young and suddenly is never easy. Especially when the rest of the family then tries to take financial advantage of that person’s death. You want no judgments here. But you are making them yourself!
Legally this may not hold, but morally:
Dresdnerin schrieb:
Part of the property was gifted from person B to person A 20 years ago You, who see yourselves as scapegoats, are in fact like A the beneficiaries of a gift from B.
You just don’t like that C is still involved, expecting their share.
Dresdnerin schrieb:
So A1, A2, and A3 are the scapegoats of the family here. By now I see a classic inheritance case, where an ex-partner (B) with a child (C) still plays a role. It could be different, but the inheritance claims mentioned read that way.
Dresdnerin schrieb:
I would have to take out a loan of more than €300,000. That may not be feasible for you, but it’s unrelated to the situation itself. Then you have to sell.
Dresdnerin schrieb:
In an initial legal consultation, we were advised not to wait for B’s estate to be settled. That was actually my thought because A2 and A3 would then inherit additional shares of the house. My advice: completely exclude C from this matter, as well as your personal relationships with A and B, and especially your judgments about C and B.
Only the facts count!
Hire a property manager to handle everything and be glad if each of you ends up with a positive balance.