The property is for sale again. However, the extract still shows a priority notice (Vormerkung) in favour of another person. The seller says the earlier purchase failed. You now want to take over as quickly as possible. Before you commit yourself, there needs to be a clarified connection between the alleged end of the earlier transaction and the continuing registration.
The priority notice is more than an old expression of interest
Section 883 BGB describes a priority notice (Vormerkung) for securing a claim. It can also secure future or conditional claims. The provision also governs the effect of later impairing dispositions and the ranking. [FREMDE-VORMERKUNG]
For that reason the priority notice does not simply prove that the other person has already become the owner. But it must not be treated like an expired reservation list either. Which claim the specific entry secures and what its status is must be professionally assessed on the basis of the documents.
Distinguish between a failed transaction and a deleted entry
Our editorial recommendation: please bring together the contract advice, the current entry and the relevant documents relating to the earlier transaction. Put the seller’s declaration on the table as such; do not replace missing evidence by repeating the declaration several times.
Ask whether and which further declaration or settlement is required for the planned new acquisition. This article does not contain an authorisation to delete and does not declare any particular earlier contract to be terminated. The actual authority of any person acting must also be appropriately checked.
Have your own acquisition result described professionally
The decisive question is what legal position you would obtain under the proposed procedure and what third-party legal position still has to be taken into account. Section 888 BGB deals, under its conditions, with a consent claim of the priority notice beneficiary against an acquirer. [ZUSTIMMUNGSANSPRUCH]
A later own registration should therefore not be used as a blanket argument that the previously secured claim thus becomes meaningless. The article does not decide on the concrete effectiveness of a second acquisition. It requires a declared procedure that actually takes the existing status into account.
Hypothetical case: the repayment is confused with the settlement
A prospective buyer learns that money has already been repaid to the earlier purchaser. She therefore assumes that the priority notice must also be legally settled. In the current extract it is still present; documents explaining the complete status are lacking.
The prospective buyer has repayment, contract termination and register status allocated separately. Only afterwards can it be assessed which steps are still necessary for her own transaction. The example does not assert either a remaining claim or its disappearance. It illustrates three different questions that cannot be answered solely by a payment note.
A comprehensible transition is required before giving a binding offer
Coordinate the clarified acquisition situation also with any financing required. Keep open which prerequisite is still outstanding and who must confirm its status. A good price and an urgent wish for a second contract do not resolve the earlier matter. For your decision a professionally explained new acquisition counts, including the third-party priority notice addressed.