> In this system, a buyer buys real estate and then pays the seller a rent for the rest of that person's life, typically while the person continues to occupy the real estate. Then, when the person dies, the buyer takes the real estate.
We have that in the US, it's called a reverse mortgage. Generally it's large investment companies doing the buying, but I don't think there is any real reason why normal people couldn't do it. The downside is that it's sort ripe for abuse where the large companies doing the buying can take advantage of the elders needing money.
Not quite. If I understand correctly from your links, the person selling the property then pays to continue living there. In the system I described, the person buying the property pays the seller an ongoing fee, and the seller continues to live there.
You can have arbitrary contractual arrangements (subject to local law), but the underlying property interests still matter, especially during disputes. I believe in the US a reverse mortgage typically means the mortgager (seller) retains legal title, with the mortgagee (buyer) taking a lien. But I believe an "en viager" is closer to the common law life estate, and in the context of reverse mortgage lookalikes would mean the mortgagee getting fee simple title with the mortgager retaining a life estate. A life estate arrangement was common, I believe, in the US before reverse mortgages became a popular product.
We have that in the US, it's called a reverse mortgage. Generally it's large investment companies doing the buying, but I don't think there is any real reason why normal people couldn't do it. The downside is that it's sort ripe for abuse where the large companies doing the buying can take advantage of the elders needing money.