BGH Ruling: Personal-Use Termination by Family GbR — Old Notices Stay Valid

Personal-Use Termination by a Family GbR: BGH Confirms — Old Notices Stay Valid

Is your landlord a GbR — a German civil-law partnership? Did you receive a personal-use termination notice (Eigenbedarfskündigung) in 2023 and hope that the 2024 reform of partnership law (MoPeG) might overturn it retroactively? A BGH ruling from April 2026 makes it clear: that argument fails.

What the BGH Decided (VIII ZR 221/25)

The case: A Berlin family GbR — a father and his three children — rented an apartment to tenants who had lived there since 1999. On 27 February 2023 the GbR issued a personal-use termination on behalf of three of its four partners. The notice period was twelve months and ran out on 29 February 2024 — after the MoPeG (Act to Modernize German Partnership Law) entered into force on 1 January 2024.

The tenants argued that MoPeG so fundamentally changed the legal framework of the GbR that a personal-use termination by a GbR was no longer possible — and that the existing notice was retroactively void.

The BGH rejected that. The key points:

• An ordinary termination is a unilateral formative act (einseitiges Gestaltungsrecht). It takes effect when it reaches the recipient (§ 130 BGB), not when the notice period ends.
• Validity is judged by the law in force at the time of receipt — i.e. the law in February 2023, before MoPeG.
• Subsequent legislation does not apply retroactively unless the legislator says so explicitly.
• A "personalistically shaped family GbR" can, in the Senate's view, continue to invoke § 573 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 BGB even under MoPeG — a partner's personal need is enough.

What a Personal-Use Termination Requires — In Brief

§ 573 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 BGB allows the landlord to give ordinary notice when they need the premises for themselves, family members, or members of their household. For a GbR, settled case law attributes the partners' personal need to the partnership itself (recently confirmed in VIII ZR 161/24 and VIII ZR 247/24).

For the notice to be valid, the following must hold:

• Form: written form with concrete reasoning (§ 568, § 573 Abs. 3 BGB)
• Content: which partner needs the apartment, why, and for whom
• Notice period: 12 months after more than ten years of tenancy (§ 573c Abs. 1 BGB)
• Genuine need: no pretextual claim of personal need

What MoPeG Doesn't Change

MoPeG reformed GbR law as of 1 January 2024. In particular, the GbR became a legal person in its own right, and its property is now attributed to the partnership rather than jointly to the partners (§§ 705 ff. BGB new version). Some voices took this to mean: a GbR cannot have a "personal" need because, as a separate legal person, it does not live anywhere.

The BGH leaves that question open here — it wasn't decision-relevant in this case. But three things are clear:

1. For terminations served before 1 January 2024, MoPeG changes nothing. The old law continues to govern.
2. For a family GbR, the Senate signals that the existing line continues even under MoPeG: a partner's personal need still grounds a termination.
3. For purely asset-managing investor GbRs (no family link) the question remains open — that's where the next round of litigation will play out.

4 Practical Takeaways

1. Check When the Notice Reached You

What matters is the date of receipt — not the date the notice was drafted, and not the date the notice period expires. When did the letter land in your mailbox? If it arrived before 1 January 2024, the MoPeG argument is closed off.

2. Family GbR or Investor GbR?

Look at who the partners are. Family members (parents and children, siblings and their families) point to a personalistic structure that the BGH continues to recognize for personal-use claims. A pure asset-management GbR with unrelated investors is a different situation — that question is still being worked out by the courts.

3. Review the Form and Reasoning

Even if the MoPeG argument fails, personal-use terminations often fall on formal grounds. Check:

• Is the specific partner needing the apartment named?
• Is the need explained convincingly (life situation, family size, professional reason)?
• Is the notice period correct (12 months after more than ten years of tenancy, longer steps no longer apply because § 573c Abs. 1 caps at twelve months for landlord-initiated notice)?
• For a multi-person landlord: have all partners signed, or is a written power of attorney attached (§ 174 BGB)?

4. The Hardship Objection (§ 574 BGB) Remains Open

Even with a valid termination, you can object on hardship grounds: advanced age, serious illness, long tenancy, pregnancy, no reasonable replacement housing. The objection must reach the landlord in writing at least two months before the notice period expires.

Who This Affects in Practice

This ruling matters for you if:

• Your landlord is a GbR (often a "family GbR" with parents and children as partners)
• You received a personal-use termination that was delivered before 1 January 2024
• You wondered whether MoPeG could overturn it retroactively

The straight answer: you cannot rely on MoPeG alone. The notice has to be invalid for other reasons — formal errors, no genuine personal need, pretextual reasons — or you can invoke a hardship ground under § 574 BGB.

What is a "Personalistically Shaped" GbR?

The BGH uses the term personalistically shaped GbR for a partnership whose partners are linked by personal ties (especially family) and whose purpose is not pure asset management as an investment vehicle. Such GbRs, the Senate suggests, will continue to be able to invoke personal-use grounds for their partners even under MoPeG — unlike, potentially, pure investor GbRs without personal connections.

Are You Affected?

Received a personal-use termination from a GbR? Unsure whether the form is right, whether the need is genuine, or whether a hardship ground applies? MieterHelfer reviews your situation in seconds and shows which arguments work in your case — free, no signup.