Reader question: What role do the time of payment and knowledge of the transfer of ownership play when the acquirer now demands rent again for a period already prepaid by the tenant?
You have prepaid the rent for several months to the previous landlord. Then your German rental flat is sold. The acquirer now demands rent again for part of the same period. A payment receipt is important, but it alone does not answer for which months the payment also has effect vis-à-vis the acquirer.
§566 BGB regulates the entry of the acquirer in respect of residential premises sold after being let. For legal transactions concerning the rent claim, in particular payments, §566c contains a special temporal rule. [BGB566][BGB566c] This article presupposes a correspondingly examined transfer of ownership and does not deal with foreclosure sales.
Four dates instead of a single payment receipt
Prepare the existing contract, the agreement on advance payment and the proof of payment. Add when ownership actually passed and when you became aware of it. An initial intention to sell, the conclusion of the purchase contract and the transfer of ownership are not necessarily the same date.
Also allocate the advance payment to the individual rental months. An amount without a specified period of performance leaves open whether it concerns current rent, a security deposit or something else. This article deals exclusively with advance payments that are to be classified as rent.
Apply the knowledge cut-off from §566c
Under §566c the legal transaction generally has effect against the acquirer up to and including the calendar month in which the tenant becomes aware of the transfer of ownership. If knowledge occurs after the 15th day, the effect also covers the following calendar month. A legal transaction carried out after the transfer is ineffective against the acquirer, however, if the tenant is aware of the transfer of ownership when making it. [BGB566c]
The sequence is therefore decisive. The statement “I paid the old landlord at some point” must not be translated into an unrestricted performance towards any later owner.
Fictional case with three prepaid months
A tenant pays, as agreed, on 1 October 2026 the rent for October, November and December to the previous landlord. In the fictional case ownership transfers on 10 October; the tenant obtains secure knowledge of this on 20 October. The other conditions of the rule as presented are assumed.
For the effect under §566c October is covered and, because knowledge was after the 15th day, November is also covered. On this basis the provision does not also protect the prepaid December rent. [BGB566c] This shows why a blanket reference to the entire old prepayment does not yet dispose of a December claim by the acquirer.
The example is not an exhaustive payment instruction. Special agreements, the actual state of knowledge and further legal objections must be checked in the concrete case. With different dates the monthly allocation will be recreated.
Addressing a double economic burden separately
If the acquirer has a claim although money has already flowed to the former landlord, the legal relationships must be separated. In advice, ask on the one hand about the current rent claim and on the other about a possible claim for repayment or compensation against the former party. The article does not automatically confirm such a claim.
Do not forward a new claim uncritically to the old contact person and then wait indefinitely. In particular, clarify which amount is outstanding to whom and how arrears can be avoided without unexamined waiver of rights.
Record the monthly status in writing
Create a short overview for each affected month: original payment, alleged effect vis-à-vis the acquirer, the acquirer’s current claim and the classification still open. Place the associated date evidence beside it. This turns an apparently simple double-payment dispute into a concretely examinable question of timing in which prior advance payment and the new rent claim can be clearly reconciled.