Legal insurance for landlords - recommendations?

35 posts in this topic

21 minutes ago, solomongrundy said:

Yes, there is a new law that prevents this. In addition, you have to really prove that you need the place and that you don t have any alternative.

You keep saying there is a new law stating you have to live there yourself for several years. Can you please link to the actual law (not an article about a law that had not at the time of publishing even made it through parliament)? How many years is several:unsure:

I know that you haver to prove you need it yourself. That was presumably already the case - as otherwise it was merely your word on paper without this being checked.

 

21 minutes ago, solomongrundy said:

They keep track because the Ordungsamt knocks on the door. I live in a shared WG and people come and go. They knocked twice looking for people who had long left. 

:huh: Presumably the Ordnungsamit were looking for these people for a separate, unrelated matter though?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lunaCH said:

How many years is several?

According to a court ruling 3 years (unless there really is a new law):

Quote

Eine Konkretisierung dieser allgemeinen Vorgaben hat aber das LG München mit Urteil vom 21.07.1993 – 14 S 11 776/92- vorgenommen und entschieden, dass ein Zeitraum von „mehreren Jahren“ i. S. des Rechtsentscheids des BayObLG vom 23.03.1993 erst bei einer beabsichtigten Nutzugsdauer von mindestens drei Jahren vorläge.

source: https://www.mietrecht.org/eigenbedarf/eigenbedarfskuendigung-wie-lange-muessen-vermieter-in-der-wohnung-leben/

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jeba said:

unless there really is a new law

Yes, I'd just really like to read through it if there is one. So far I feel that the ones spoken of are local rules/laws for cities with housing problems and rules related more to the increase in rent, possibly following modernisation/renovation works, which is something different. :)

 

From page you linked to: 

Ob und unter welchen Voraussetzungen eine Eigenbedarfskündigung des Vermieters wegen nur kurzer Nutzungsdauer unwirksam ist und wann diese keinen Einfluss auf die Wirksamkeit der Kündigung hat, hängt von den jeweiligen Umständen des Einzelfalls ab

 

Eine grundsätzliche Verpflichtung, eine gewisse Zeit in der gekündigten Wohnung zu wohnen, gibt es nämlich nicht.

 

So, no specific time frame.

 

In any case the onus is on the tenant who had to move out to prove anything abusive about the lease termination. I think it could be difficult in some cases for that proof to be obtained, - a certain threshold of evidence would be needed also. It can't just be word against word. 

Presumably they'd only start up a case if they had solid evidence and/or if they had legal insurance. 

 

We don't currently plan to ask the tenant to leave, but we have a valid reason, without any specific time frame we can possibly mention, should we feel we need the flat from a certain date onward.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, lunaCH said:

Eine grundsätzliche Verpflichtung, eine gewisse Zeit in der gekündigten Wohnung zu wohnen, gibt es nämlich nicht.

To me that seems to contradict the court ruling which specified the decision of the higher court (which spoke of several years), saying that several means at least 3.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jeba said:

To me that seems to contradict the court ruling which specified the decision of the higher court (which spoke of several years), saying that several means at least 3.

Indeed it is rather confusing.

Still, is a previous tenant really going to keep track of what's going on at their former abode for years and then start a legal case up against the landlord because she or he only stayed there for say 2 years and 6 months rather than 3 years? Fairly unlikely.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, lunaCH said:

Indeed it is rather confusing.

Still, is a previous tenant really going to keep track of what's going on at their former abode for years and then start a legal case up against the landlord because she or he only stayed there for say 2 years and 6 months rather than 3 years? Fairly unlikely.

Yes, they will check because he or she can sue you for (1) damages and mental anguish (2) rent difference between the new place and the old place (3) cost of moving (4) loss of long standing tenant rights...and so on. 

In Germany, homes are not seen as houses (mere real estate). A home is a home. Judgments reflect that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, solomongrundy said:

Yes, they will check because he or she can sue you for (1) damages and mental anguish (2) rent difference between the new place and the old place (3) cost of moving (4) loss of long standing tenant rights...and so on. 

In Germany, homes are not seen as houses (mere real estate). A home is a home. Judgments reflect that.

Still landlords/owners have rights as well and the law currently states that there is no obligation to live in the freed-up dwelling for a certain length of time. Moreover the owner's needs and circumstances can change after a short period of time following an eviction. ;)

https://www.mietrecht.org/eigenbedarf/eigenbedarfskuendigung-wie-lange-muessen-vermieter-in-der-wohnung-leben/

You could hang about following an eviction and check up on the owner. But the law is on the side of the owner and the onus on the evicted tenant to prove that the eviction was abusive. You don't know the personal circumstances of the owner and what they also may be going through.

 

Mieter fühlen sich in solchen Fällen regelmäßig betrogen und halten die Kündigung für unwirksam.

Hieraus resultieren nicht selten Schadensersatzforderungen des Mieters, der seine mit dem Umzug verbundenen Kosten ersetzt bekommen möchte. Dieses Verlangen ist jedoch nicht immer berechtigt.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, lunaCH said:

Still landlords/owners have rights as well and the law currently states that there is no obligation to live in the freed-up dwelling for a certain length of time. Moreover the owner's needs and circumstances can change after a short period of time following an eviction. ;)

https://www.mietrecht.org/eigenbedarf/eigenbedarfskuendigung-wie-lange-muessen-vermieter-in-der-wohnung-leben/

You could hang about following an eviction and check up on the owner. But the law is on the side of the owner and the onus on the evicted tenant to prove that the eviction was abusive. You don't know the personal circumstances of the owner and what they also may be going through.

 

Mieter fühlen sich in solchen Fällen regelmäßig betrogen und halten die Kündigung für unwirksam.

Hieraus resultieren nicht selten Schadensersatzforderungen des Mieters, der seine mit dem Umzug verbundenen Kosten ersetzt bekommen möchte. Dieses Verlangen ist jedoch nicht immer berechtigt.

Look, seriously, don t argue with me. You don t have a chance. If you have not spent your money, buy an empty apartment. If you have, prepare for a serious battle.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, solomongrundy said:

Look, seriously, don t argue with me. You don t have a chance. If you have not spent your money, buy an empty apartment. If you have, prepare for a serious battle.  

:huh: How the heck can you make such a presumption when you know nothing about the circumstances of our case, should we decide to terminate the tenant's lease. Did you read/understand anything that was linked to? :unsure:

If we decide to invoke Eigenbedarf on our new property we will, meanwhile we continue to live where we are. We already have landlord insurance set up, as well as plenty of favourable documents for a case as to why we need it, should the tenant legally challenge the termination. I don't see why there should be a battle.

The tenant knew full well when she moved in that the property was already up for sale. We indicated from the very first viewing that we were unsure of what our exact plans were but that we might invoke Eigenbedarf after purchase. So she knows that her move could backfire on her. She is actually not new to the building and only had to move from one flat across the floor to what is now ours. I found it a little odd (as did the bank) that the flat was being sold with a tenant who was only just moving in (when we viewed the flat it was still empty but the rental contract has already been signed), because of the risk that she then has to move again once the sale is completed and this time a proper move, i.e. right out of the building, so with a lorry. But it's her risk. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lunaCH said:

The tenant knew full well when she moved in that the property was already up for sale. We indicated from the very first viewing that we were unsure of what our exact plans were but that we might invoke Eigenbedarf after purchase.

 

Even if she knew all of that and you could prove it, she can still fight the notice should she want to.  Maybe she's a member of the mieterverein, maybe she has legal insurance or maybe she has a new bf who is a lawyer.  Then again, maybe not, you could get lucky and she'll just leave.  There's no way to know until it happens.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, LeonG said:

 

Even if she knew all of that and you could prove it, she can still fight the notice should she want to.  Maybe she's a member of the mieterverein, maybe she has legal insurance or maybe she has a new bf who is a lawyer.  Then again, maybe not, you could get lucky and she'll just leave.  There's no way to know until it happens.

 

Whilst this is all true, if she does contest it, we don't need to prove she knew it was being sold, as, apart from the fact that it is obvious as she'll be meeting us at the handover and receiving our bank details etc. for the payment of rent), we don't intend to give 'oh, she knew', as a reason, as that's not the reason. 

We've discussed it with our lawyer and they feel that we would have an overwhelmingly strong case if she did contest it, owing purely to our current circumstances.

----------

There seems to be a lot of posts (not just on this thread, but on several others), opining that buying a property with a sitting tenant is something to avoid at all costs and that invoking Eigenbedarf is impossible with horror stories saying you won't be able to get into the flat again until the tenants and their children, grandchildren, florist etc. have all passed away,. I just don't see it that way. 

First of all, not all terminations for Eigenbedarf are abusive. In our case, if invoked, this could not be further from the truth. 

Secondly, not all terminations for Eigenbedarf are contested. A tenant may accept a financial gesture, such as the owner renouncing on billing Nebenkosten etc.

Thirdly, when they are contested legally, the tenant still has to give a valid reason that convinces the legal system, plus they have may have to pre-pay some legal costs. Even having legal insurance itself (possibly for this sole reason) generates a financial outlay. 

Fourthly, the owner may have needs that outweigh the needs of the tenant, in which case the tenant, if they have no legal insurance, loses the case and has to pay costs. This could be expensive and stressful - as at the same time they have to think about finding somewhere new, the move and all its associated costs as well as the legal costs.

Landlords/owners have rights too. :)

 

Further it is often bandied about that there is, aside from the ordinary notice period on terminating, an extra waiting period that the new owner has to accept following purchase (some people have even speculated decades). This is simply not true.

As far as I am aware, there is only extra time to wait if it is written into the sale-purchase contract and/or if the building has been converted

https://www.mietrecht.com/sperrfrist-eigenbedarf/

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 minutes ago, lunaCH said:

There seems to be a lot of posts (not just on this thread, but on several others), opining that buying a property with a sitting tenant is something to avoid at all costs and that invoking Eigenbedarf is impossible with horror stories saying you won't be able to get into the flat again until the tenants and their children, grandchildren, florist etc. have all passed away,. I just don't see it that way. 

First of all, not all terminations for Eigenbedarf are abusive. In our case, if invoked, this could not be further from the truth. 

Secondly, not all terminations for Eigenbedarf are contested. A tenant may accept a financial gesture, such as the owner renouncing on billing Nebenkosten etc.

 

I would never buy an apartment with a sitting tenant if I was planning on giving them notice simply because it's extra hassle plus I might feel a little sorry for the tenant having to move.  Then again I would never buy an apartment to rent it out either, at least not here.  Sure it could all go well and on the other hand it could also go very wrong.

 

Personally I was given notice due to eigenbedarf and I didn't fight it.  I wanted to move anyway.  Sometimes people don't care.  It can depend on the location though, housing shortage, if they are paying low rent.  The tenant is more likely to fight if it's not easy for them to find another apartment in the area that they can afford.

 

As for eigenbedarf being abusive, many people would argue that buying an apartment with the intention of evicting the tenant is always abusive.  Then again, some of us come from countries where tenants don't have much in the way of rights and then it's more like if you want to live there forever, you should better have bought it yourself.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LeonG said:

I might feel a little sorry for the tenant having to move.

I would feel absolutely awful and very sorry if I actually had to serve a termination on her, especially as she has just moved in.

Unhappily, if I have to, it will be owing to circumstances totally beyond my control, - something which I would be happy to explain to her in detail - and the whole thing which is quite complex can be backed up with documents. 

I did say to the Makler that it would be better if the owner annulled the already signed lease contract as it would mean less hassle for the tenant if she stayed in the other flat and not move in to the one being sold, as she risks having to move again. And she can't move into her old flat as that has a different owner and has since been let. 

Alas, the owner of the flat we are buying did not agree and wanted it sold 'let' to get the rent money for just two months before the handover. :rolleyes: 

If he had have sold it to us empty, we would be already using it from next month for ourselves and I would have taken a job in the village in queston.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, lunaCH said:

I would feel absolutely awful and very sorry if I actually had to serve a termination on her, especially as she has just moved in.

Unhappily, if I have to, it will be owing to circumstances totally beyond my control, - something which I would be happy to explain to her in detail - and the whole thing which is quite complex can be backed up with documents. 

I did say to the Makler that it would be better if the owner annulled the already signed lease contract as it would mean less hassle for the tenant if she stayed in the other flat and not move in to the one being sold, as she risks having to move again.

Alas, the owner did not agree and wanted it sold 'let' to get the rent money for two months before the handover. :rolleyes: 

If he had have sold it to us empty, we would be already using it from next month for ourselves.

Well, that puts a different spin on things. If she just moved in, she is not a long term tenant, and maybe willing to shift. It is when you live in a place for a very long time that you become attached to it. Tenant law reflects that as the notice period you have to give goes up depending on the number of years you live there.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, solomongrundy said:

Well, that puts a different spin on things. If she just moved in, she is not a long term tenant, and maybe willing to shift. It is when you live in a place for a very long time that you become attached to it. Tenant law reflects that as the notice period you have to give goes up depending on the number of years you live there.

She signed the lease in April and had the 3 months or so left to run on her own lease. We viewed the flat in July when it was empty (previous tenants had by then moved) and we said immediately we were interested and would possibly live there and would prefer to take it empty. Owner agreed to sell to us, but with tenant in place, we didn't question it as otherwise it may have gone to someone else who was only investing, we're investing but also could need it (though this has never been definite). She does not have children, is not ill, disabled or elderly and she works. 

She moved in on 1st Aug. We are officially owners from 1st Oct. We have to give her 3 months notice, but would not do this until we are in the Grundbuch. She is fine for now, but depending on our circumstances, she could be looking at having to move later in winter or spring and she knows this, but as the flat is more modern than the previous one she was in and as she only had to move across the hallway, I guess she was willing to gamble. No idea if she'd contest it. 

For me she is obviously a new tenant, just not new to the building itself. I don't know how long she was in the other flat on the same floor, but the lawyer said it doesn't count even if it was decades. :)

0

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