4 ms·
That is an almost accurate interpretation. They knew for sure the state of things and were not surprised by the missing documents - this was proven during the p
by kioleanu 3y ago
That is an almost accurate interpretation. They knew for sure the state of things and were not surprised by the missing documents - this was proven during the pre-trial.
I can only speculate as to why they did it, but I am pretty sure that it was to get the whole process started because some of the heirs were in poor health and they needed to sign the contract sooner rather than later, otherwise they would have entered in a potential loop of heirs dying and having to find the heirs of the heir and so on. So they said, let's start this thing now to minimize that risk and work on the rest of the documents later. From this point of view, they were right, as two people died in the months that followed.
I am also sure that they've hidden the fact because they knew that in this situation, it would have been nearly impossible to find a buyer willing to take part in the risk.
You are right with your remarks about experienced buyers. All in all, I have almost 0 regrets about the whole thing, I learned a lot of stuff in the meantime and got the house eventually
- medo-bear 3y agoI don't know if you had to pay a deposit, but if you did I think you are really lucky that the owners turned out to be honnest sellers. If you took this approach in Eastern Europe with a property that has many owners of distant relations you would have very likely lost your deposit and courts would be unable to help you. If there are more than two owners (husband and wife) my advice is to pay a lawayer around a 1000eur to see you through the whole legal process.