A sensation in Germany: a farmer inherited her mother’s farm and contested a notary’s bill for 10,000 euros

A farmer inherited her mother’s farm. Prior to the inheritance, she and her husband had been running the farm as tenants. The notary, having calculated the value of the transaction at 1,885,492 euros, issued an invoice for 10,000.07 euros for the notarisation of the transaction and other costs. The farmer contested the amount of this invoice, according to reports in the German press.

On 29 September 2020, the notary, acting on behalf of the applicant and her mother, certified the farm transfer agreement, under which the mother transferred the entire agricultural holding and the associated plots of land to her daughter.

On 1 February 2021, the notary issued an invoice calculated on the basis of a transaction value of 1,885,492 euros, the total amount of which, including fees, was 10,000.07 euros.

The applicant contested this invoice. In her view, a reduction should have been applied when calculating the notary’s fee. She explained that, from 1 January 2014, the farm had been leased to her personally, and she therefore effectively managed it. It was solely for reasons of social insurance and social security law that, from 1 April 2018, the tenancy agreement was concluded with her mother’s son-in-law, i.e. the applicant’s husband; however, in reality, both spouses continued to manage the farm jointly.

Court: the notary calculated the fees correctly

The court requested the Munich Notaries’ Chamber to submit an opinion, which was made available to all parties to the proceedings. The court ruled that the applicant’s complaint was essentially unfounded.

The notary’s invoice had been drawn up correctly and met all formal requirements. The value of the transaction had also been correctly determined – based on the market value of the property being transferred. Furthermore, it transpired that the farm had been leased to the husband, not to the heiress. Following the transfer of ownership, she merely assumed the lessor’s rights and obligations under the existing lease agreement. It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the heiress directly continued the farm’s operations.

The text of the law clearly stipulates that the relief applies only when the heir themselves takes over and continues the farm’s operations. The court emphasised that even a lease to a family member does not override this rule – such a lease also does not allow for the tax relief to be applied.

In the case in question, the farm was leased to a third party – the applicant’s husband – both before and after the transfer of ownership. For this reason, the notary was justified in not applying the tax relief provided for by law, and the court recognised that the notary’s fee of 10,000.07 euros had been calculated lawfully.