Blog
Assets
An inherited family home: how 500,000 euros turned into 30,000
“Half the house is mine”: the other side sat at the table with that firm conviction. The family home, however, had been inherited by our client alone, and in the end only a fraction of the increase in the property's value entered the calculation. The case shows how far the widespread idea of “half the house” is from the legal position.
Karcher Rechtsanwälte in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, focusing on uncontested divorce and international family law. Advice in German, English and Spanish.
Part of our guide Assets & accrued gainsThe case shows in exemplary fashion how stubbornly a misunderstanding holds on, and how much money hangs on it.
The starting position
Our client had inherited the family home some years after the wedding, a detached house in a region with a rising property market. At the time of the inheritance it was worth around 410,000 euros. When the marriage failed years later, the market value stood at about 500,000 euros. There were no encumbrances left.
The other side calculated simply: half the house, so a claim of 250,000 euros. That figure was on the table from the outset and shaped the whole attitude in the proceedings.
The point of dispute
The question was not who owned the house (that was undisputed) but at what value it entered the equalization of accrued gains at all. The other side treated the property like assets earned jointly. In fact, though, it is an inheritance, and that counts towards the privileged initial assets § 1374 (2) BGB: the value the house had at the time of the inheritance is attributed to the initial assets and therefore stays out of it.
Subject to equalization is solely what the house gained in value during the marriage. And even that growth is not divided in full, because the equalization of accrued gains is a claim for money over half the difference between the two sets of accrued gains § 1378 BGB.
How the calculation worked out
From the final value of 500,000 euros, the initial value is deducted in its indexed form. So that mere monetary depreciation does not wrongly appear as a gain, the value at the time of the inheritance is projected forward to the cut-off date using the consumer price index § 1376 BGB. The 410,000 euros thus became around 470,000 euros in today’s purchasing power.
What remained was an increase in the value of the house during the marriage of about 30,000 euros, not 500,000 and not 250,000. And because what is equalized is half the difference between the two sets of accrued gains, the property affected the equalization claim in the end by an amount in the low five figures. The quarter of a million demanded at the outset had become a fraction of that.
Our assessment
What was decisive were two clean valuations and the indexing in between; no rhetorical trick was needed for it. Once the figures lay documented on the table, the demand for “half the house” could no longer be sustained. The case would have tipped where substantial sums had been invested in the property during the marriage; the other side would then have shared more strongly after all, through the higher final value. That is exactly why in such constellations we examine the documentation on modernizations and work done by the owners early on.
In its structure the case resembles many others; its figures, by contrast, are unusually high. The lesson carries far beyond it: with inherited assets what counts is the difference between two cut-off dates, and mere ownership plays no part in it.
Where an inherited property or one brought into the marriage is at stake in your case, the right valuation decides considerable amounts. In a confidential first conversation we sort out which approach carries in your case.
Attorney at law · focus on family law
Admitted since 2010, more than fifteen years of experience in advising and representation. The contact for new instructions at Karcher Rechtsanwälte in Frankfurt-Gallus.
Legal notice: This article is provided for general information and does not replace legal advice in an individual case. Any laws, deadlines and amounts mentioned reflect the state of affairs at the time of publication and may change. A binding assessment requires a personal consultation.