General tips when renting accommodation

87 posts in this topic

that sounds like complete bullshit


I'm starting to think munich landlords need a serious smack down.


eta:  ideally what you should do is find out if it's legal to have a clause like this in the mietvertrag.  If it's not, and nothing else in the lease puts you at a real disadvantage, you could sign the contract and then refuse to pay.  Buuuuut, consider whether you want to have regular pissing contests over your housing as you likely will.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how I understand it. Her last name, is also the name of the Rechtsanwalt (but with a male first name). The email she sent the contract with also has lawyer ringing name. So both lawyers. Maybe they somehow own the apartment too. 


It was weird, she said she will send the contract for me to read through, then she send a text asking for my email (even though she has it). It is like she is setting it up for a battle in court: "he had time to review the contract" 


It was a while ago I applied, then she suddenly calls and offer a viewing. Seems like others have failed to fall in the trap. I will give this to the Mietverein, I am a member also, maybe they can stop her from trapping someone else. 





Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The landlord claims it was a mistake considering another appartement. Don't believe that for a second. She send a updated contract but I will not take it no matter what. Too many red flags and I would not sleep well. Not that urgent to find a place. 


I'm just curious, I'm having a hard time translate the following (still in the updated contract) which is not in any of my other German standard rental contracts: 


Die Vertragsparteien verzichten auf eine feste Verbindung des Übergabeprotokolls mit dem Mietvertrag und werden insofern die Einrede der Nichteinhaltung von Formvorschriften nicht geltend machen.


Just to see if that is another red flag...


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eigenbedarf and Sperrfrist



Lately the Federal Civil Court (BGH) has rendered several decisions that have weakened the position of the tenant, especially in the area of interest here, called “Eigenbedarf”, i.e. when the landlord terminates a lease in order to use the object for himself or for close relatives.


In the decision introduced here, however, the Court ruled in favor of the tenant. The case concerns a scenario that had the legislative act to protect the tenant. So, nowadays, there is freeze period of three years (“Sperrfrist”) when the lessee resides in a rented apartment, which later during the lease is turned into so called apartment ownership (“Wohnungseigentum”) and then being sold to a new owner. The new owner is barred from invoking Eigenbedarf for three years starting. By regulation, state governments of the Länder can extend the freeze up to 10 years. It is important to note that three acts are involved: A residing tenant, establishment of apartment ownership and subsequent selling.


So far so good. But increasingly cases sprang up where property was sold to partnerships instead. With pooled resources the partnership bought a whole house from a building contractor. It then postponed its intention to establish apartment ownership with subsequent selling. Before setting up apartment ownership, one of their partners claimed Eigenbedarf. The BGH acknowledging that a partner of a partnership is principally entitled to claim Eigenbedarf did not apply the time freeze.


Fortunately, the legislative acted again and, amending § 577a BGB, stipulated that the freeze period is to be applied in cases where the rented space has been sold to a partnership.


Case or, more precisely, loopholes closed?


Consider the case at hand:


The defendant, an old lady, was the tenant for many years since the 1980s of a spacious apartment in Frankfurt Westend. The plaintiff is a partnership consisting of three partners. The partnership became owner and new landlord in 2015. Some months into the lease, the partnership claimed Eigenbedarf for one of its partners.


The old lady protested, the partnership went to court and here we are at the BGH years later.


So does the freeze period apply invalidating the termination?


Remember, that in the original scenario, which was later extended to partnerships, there have been three acts involved before the freeze period took hold for the new owner. First, the tenant was residing in a leased apartment, following which apartment ownership

(Wohnungseigentum) was established and the apartment was sold.


So the question arose and took the way up to the BGH, what if there is not even the slightest hint that the establishment of apartment ownership is at all ever intended? Still a freeze period for the acquiring partnership as a roadblock to Eigenbedarf?


Yes, according to the new ruling. The BGH now strengthened the rights of tenants:


In cases as the one outlined here (selling the object to a partnership after the tenant began residing in it), the freeze period does not require that the partnership also later establishes or even intends to establish apartment ownership (Wohnungseigentum).


Therefore, the termination was premature and invalid.



BGH, dated 21.3.2018 – VIII ZR 104/17


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now