Three adults want to buy an apartment together and each contribute part of the price. They are already calculating on three equally sized ownership shares. Before a binding commitment is made, it must be clarified whether the desired structure fits the offered condominium property and which alternative actually corresponds to the shared goals.
First align the offer and the number of participants
§5 Absatz 1 WEG describes acquisition of the minimum share and the ownership partnership of two natural persons with each half of the minimum share. [ERWERBSFORM] No freely expandable three-person partnership for the same single property may be derived from this construction.
This article concerns an Austrian condominium property. Simple co-ownership of an entire house and possible company models are not presented as interchangeable standard solutions. Legal advice must examine with you which arrangement is possible and sensible for what is specifically intended.
Don’t only ask who should appear in the land register
First write down for each person what goal they connect with the purchase. Do they want to live there themselves, participate capital permanently, lend money or support another person? The same amount of money does not automatically mean the same desired role.
Disclose these goals together with the origin of the funds and the intended ongoing obligations. If a person is only supposed to contribute money although they actually expect secured ownership, there is a significant unresolved difference. It will not be eliminated by a private shared spreadsheet.
Fictitious case: three payments but unclear rights
Three siblings want to buy a property. Two are to use it, the third wants to get their money back later. At first everyone simply calls the payment equity. In the discussion it becomes apparent that repayment, ownership status and residential use are understood differently.
The group therefore has the acquisition structure and the appropriate internal agreements reviewed before the offer. They do not simply adopt the two-person structure and add a name. The example does not propose either a company or a family loan as the generally correct solution. It shows the decision that must be made before financing at all.
Have a later exit explicitly reviewed
Discuss what the chosen arrangement would mean for repayment, sale, change of use and decision-making processes. The specialist advice should explain the consequences on the basis of a concrete intended structure. A general promise that people will sort it out if necessary does not answer these questions.
Also check whether the structure will be assessed by the financing institution on the same basis. Who is to assume loan obligations and what security is envisaged are additional decisions. A promise to transfer one third monthly does not by itself make anyone an owner.
Only make a coordinated model binding
The aim is an understandable model for all parties involved: which rights should each person receive, what obligations should they owe and how are changes to be handled? Have it explained which documents and prerequisites are necessary for this before offers and money flows are prepared.
If the offered individual condominium does not support your joint structure, another property or another arrangement may need to be considered. A decision against it is more comprehensible than three payments that reflect three different ideas about the acquisition.