Maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but I don’t see why it should be the buyers responsibility to take care of the previous owners debts. Wouldn’t this just make it more difficult for people to buy an apartment?

by RSgodson

18 comments

  1. It would be more difficult for seller to sell the apartment, but the easy answer is just lower the apartment price by the amount of debt and the new owner settles it.

  2. In Estonia it has been like that like since 2005 or earlier, strange that it is different in Latvia. Who pays the debts then?

  3. Seems logical. Only debt related to the apartment maintenance, not all debt.

    If you’re not paying, you’re basically taking money from your neighbors not some “corporation”

  4. Yes, BS in my opinion, removes all responsibility from owner and puts it on potential buyer.
    Basically you’ll have to go to a lawyer to verify whether apartment has debts before buying. If it has huge debts, negotiate with seller to sell for cheaper because you’ll have to cover debts, or refuse the deal.

  6. I don’t see the difference.

    Either

    A) previous owner pays them and get full price for apartment

    Or

    B) new owner pays less for apartment and deals with depts

    The only big thing is buyers knowing the law and making sure there are no hanging debts.

  7. How about allowing any deals only on debt free properties? (Maintenance and utility debts, I mean). Now splitting 3 years go to new owner and older ones stay with old owner. Sounds messy.

  9. Very much makes sense. Buyer has to ensure that apartment has no debts. Also all contracts usually state this.

    What is solves is sitution where seller has debts and just wanishes.

    Then house bears debt of that seller, which was bs.

    With this nobody will want to buy apartment in debt. Less debts for house.

  10. Well, what likely happened before is that old owner disappeared without paying and there were no longer any means to force them to pay like disconecting utilities either, while the new owner probably is capable of paying, if they can buy appartment, so while not super fair to the new owner, there is some sense there, it is up to them to do due diligence before buying. 

  11. It’s fine as long as there is a centralised database of debts and buyer in the contract acknowledge those. Worst thing would be to find out about debts after purchase..

  13. Makes sense from the house’s perspective. Some random owner is not paying for heating, water, maintenance and its hard to get anything back. Especially when its sold – good luck… Its in the best interest of the company that does the maintenance to tell the buyer that there are debts.

  15. Its a clusterfuck with the old way too, causes a lot of problems as others already described.

    Practically, you need to do due diligence on the debt and realistically renegotiate the price down according to it.

  16. So where is the amazing free website to check apartment debts for people to use then?

  17. It should be this way – the only thing that information about the debt should be easily accessible to the buyer.

  18. Parastai dzīvokļu pirkšanai-pārdošanai šī nav problēma, drīzāk izsolē iegādātiem dzīvokļiem.

Comments are closed.