Two or more people jointly own a house in Germany but no longer want to remain bound together indefinitely. One person wants to sell, another wants to stay. An advertisement does not resolve this conflict. First it must be clear what type of co-ownership exists, what each person wants to achieve legally and economically, and which route can actually address those goals. This article concerns fractional ownership (Bruchteilseigentum); an undivided inheritance community is not equated here.
Name the subject of the exit
§ 747 BGB distinguishes the disposition over one’s own share from the disposition over the jointly owned object as a whole. The latter can only be carried out jointly by the co-owners. [ANTEIL] If one person wants to exit, it must therefore be clarified: should their share be taken over, should the whole house be sold jointly, or should the community be dissolved in some other way?
An ideal quota (ideelle Quote) is not a statement that a particular floor can be sold alone without further basis. Present the land register and any existing agreements for legal examination. This article does not explain a division into independent flats and does not promise financing for the acquisition of a share.
Work through an internal takeover in concrete terms
Our practical recommendation is, where there is a serious takeover intention, to start with a shared, comprehensible valuation basis. Which property in what condition and with which rights is being considered? An old purchase price and today’s hope of a sale proceeds are different starting figures.
In addition, existing financing, compensation, actual use and transaction costs are part of the calculation. The person who wants to stay needs a realistic basis for the planned compensation. A private agreement about the economic burden does not replace a separate check of existing bank obligations and securities. Therefore do not promise the release of a participant from a loan until the actually required consent has been clarified.
Time and interim costs also belong in the calculation. Who takes over which ongoing payments until the planned solution and how will they be taken into account later? These points are agreed upon without thereby unexaminedly fixing a final legal position.
Voluntary sale requires a shared state of action
If a sale of the whole house is seriously possible, agree a comprehensible process: who obtains documents, who coordinates appointments and how are offers made accessible to all participants? A price proposal is not yet an authorisation to make any declaration for the others.
In case of disagreement a concrete comparison helps. Is it about the achievable price, the move-out date or the fundamental intention to keep the ownership? A joint valuation report can objectify a price question. But it does not decide a dispute about whether someone wants to sell at all. Professionally guided mediation can open up a different solution space, without this creating a guarantee of agreement.
Dissolution is a legal route with its own limits
§ 749 BGB basically contains each co-owner’s claim to dissolution. The provision also deals with agreed exclusions and the important reason. [AUFHEBUNG] This does not automatically entail a claim that the other person must accept exactly your proposed voluntary price or contract.
If division in kind is excluded, § 753 BGB governs dissolution by sale, in the case of land by compulsory auction, and the division of the proceeds. [VERKAUF] § 180 ZVG contains special rules on this, including possibilities of provisional suspension after a balancing of interests and under closer family prerequisites to protect joint children. [VERFAHREN] An application is therefore not a reliable button for an immediately guaranteed cash inflow.
Before such a route you need an assessment related to the specific community of prerequisites, possible objections, costs, third-party rights and proceeds consequences. The article promises neither a minimum price nor a specific duration of proceedings. Especially where further claims between the participants are disputed, a simple calculation of house value divided by number of people is too crude.
A hypothetical comparison of the options
Two people hold, according to the documents assumed for the example, a half share each. One wants to stay but cannot yet finance the proposed compensation. The other needs a comprehensible exit date. They therefore compare a time-specifically prepared takeover, a joint sale and, after professional examination, dissolution.
For each option they note available financing, conditions, interim costs and open risks. The mere threat of an auction is not counted as a ready-made solution. In the end there should either be an implementable agreement with effective arrangement or a consciously chosen legal course of action. Different goals are thus not talked away but translated into verifiable decisions.