01 November 2024
Table of contents
Investing in vacation homes is increasingly popular. Europarcs is one of the best-known providers of such vacation homes. Yet the company recently faced a legal nightmare. In June of this year, an Amsterdam judge ruled that Europarcs had misled a woman when buying a vacation home at their location in Kaatsheuvel (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:4601). In fact, the woman had not become the owner of the dwelling but only received a right of use. The land on which the ‘purchased’ home stood, she had to hire.
Three years ago, the woman signed a purchase agreement for a vacation home that had yet to be built on one of the Europarcs sites. The agreement read: “new recreation property purchase agreement”. The purchase price amounted to €205,095. In addition, an annual sum of €4,234 had to be paid for the rent of the plot on which the house was to be built.
On the purchase agreement the text reads: “Purchase agreement for new recreational property”
However, once the house was completed, it turned out that the property did not belong to her. Landowner Europarcs was said to be the owner. What she had “bought” was in fact only the right to use the property. There was no superficies established so that the landlord and owner of the land, would also retain ownership of the home built on it. The woman said she had no idea that this was the agreement or intention. She had not been informed that she would not become the owner of the property for over €200k. Exactly that ignorant aspect is what makes this case legally interesting.
Europarcs became the legal owner of the property because of the existence of wet migration. This is because the law states that ownership of the land includes ownership of the buildings and works that are permanently united with the land. The works must then be intended to remain permanently in situ. This is called natrekking. Because the vacation home is built to remain permanently on site, the owner of the land also becomes the owner of the building. The only way to break this is to establish a building lease. A building lease is a right in rem, which gives the right to own works on someone else's land. Without building rights, there is the aforementioned nativity.
Because Europarcs remained the legal owner, the court ruled that the ‘purchase agreement’ was misleading. The woman had not been informed that she would not become the owner of the recreational home. This was considered a so-called unfair trade practice. The court therefore nullified the agreement and ruled that Europarcs had to repay the full amount of more than €205,000.
It often happens that individuals or investors ‘buy’ a recreational home or chalet that later turns out not to be their property at all. There are numerous vacation parks in the Netherlands where the owner rents out plots, with the right to place a chalet or other type of vacation home on them. However, the owner of the park then also remains or becomes the owner of the buildings placed on the plot. This can have far-reaching consequences. The landlord can terminate the lease of the lot, with the tenant hardly rent protection enjoyed. Often those tenants find out only then that they do not own the development at all. Termination often occurs when the park owner wants to make changes to the park, or in the event of the park owner's bankruptcy. As the ‘owner,’ you are then often left empty-handed.
Owner of recreational home is left empty-handed upon termination of lot lease by park owner
The real estate law attorney at Lexys Attorneys at Law has extensive experience in similar situations. Are you planning to buy a recreational home? Then get good advice beforehand. And if you have already bought a home but it does not seem to be what you were led to believe, Lexys can also assist you with advice and assistance. Take contact at for more information.