OGH Reviews Lakeside Property Purchase Below Market Value

May 28, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) had to consider the question of the conditions under which a property sale may be set aside as a usurious transaction under Section 879(2)(4) of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, ABGB). The subject of the dispute was the sale of a lakeside property, including a boathouse, for EUR 324,000, even though the market value was estimated at around EUR 3 million according to an expert report.

At the time of the sale, the seller was over 80 years old. After her passing, her legal successor pursuant to the will challenged the validity of the sale contract, alleging, among other things, usury. The successor contended that the seller had lacked adequate knowledge of prevailing market values for lakeside properties and had been exploited by the purchasers.

Conditions for usury

The OGH first confirmed that three conditions must be met for a transaction to constitute usury: a striking imbalance between the service provided and the consideration received; a limited ability on the part of the disadvantaged party to adequately protect their interests; and the exploitation of this situation by the other party to the contract.

The significant discrepancy between the purchase price and the market value was evident in this case. Nevertheless, the findings to date are insufficient to allow a definitive assessment of whether the seller was in fact inexperienced or particularly trusting. In particular, there is a lack of findings regarding her knowledge of property prices and her motives for setting the price.

Further examination by the court of first instance

Further findings are also required with regard to the buyers. The court of first instance must clarify what value the buyers themselves had assumed and whether they were aware of any misconceptions on the part of the seller.

Furthermore, the OGH clarified that, in the event of a successful rescission, a claim for compensation for use may in principle also arise if there is a particularly gross imbalance in the consideration.

The OGH therefore quashed the decisions of the lower courts and referred the case back to the court of first instance for a fresh ruling.

OGH 9 Ob 53/25x (18 March 2026)