Those who still pay high interest on his loan can save money with a trick. A judgment of the Supreme Court should provide legal clarity. But this did not happen. For good reason.
Gerichtsentscheidungen ensures legal clarity – and that is why they are sometimes prevented. Why exactly announced for this Tuesday judgment of the Federal Court failed to revoke loan agreements, is not known. The parties, an individual, and Sparda Bank Baden-Wuerttemberg had said the dispute (Ref .: XI ZR 366/15) for completed, one learns from Karlsruhe.
It could have been a controversial verdict: It’s about the hotly debated question of whether consumers and they’re old – can revoke expensive loan contracts – compared to today’s interest rates. With appropriate cases entrusted lawyers estimate the number of similar cases lies in five to six figures. Because of the interest rate trends can be very useful to end a previous loan agreement in this way – especially since an early termination is usually expensive.
However, those affected must hurry: The legislature has recognized this development and limits the revocability of the old contracts until June 21. Those who want to break away from a potentially expensive contract, it must have gladly played by investors lawyers’ withdrawal Joker “called card until then.
No judgment, no attention
In this specific case, the plaintiffs had withdrawn earlier loan agreements on 20 June 2014. The bank denied this, then the customer complained that the court finds the re-conversion of the loan agreement. In the lower court, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Stuttgart ruled that the revocation of all loan agreements was effective (Ref .: 6 U 41/15).
Had the Federal Court not revised this decision, the case for special attention would have taken care of and encouraged other clients to revocation and action. It is a common tactic of banks to be prevented by appropriate offers to customers complaining that a lawsuit will be decided in a high instance. So attention is avoided namely: Without judgment, the case does not appear on the evening news.
Real Estate Financing: How to use the revocation Joker and save money
Legally it comes to errors in the cancellation at the conclusion of loan agreements that allow customers in some circumstances to dissolve years later in the bargain. Background of the litigation is a previous scheme for withdrawal. Actually, this right is to give the consumer time to think the matter within two weeks again. If, after the former legal position of the consumer has not been informed correctly, how it can be solved by an online signed contract, the withdrawal period runs practically unlimited. to formulate these instructions for every eventuality correct is extremely difficult, so difficult that it initially even the legislature itself failed in its pattern.
Landmark ruling is expected
The courts have therefore now been clarified that a policy is at least regarded as legitimate if it exactly corresponds to the pattern (so-called Gesetzlichkeitsfiktion). Smallest editorial changes of instruction – either in order to make them more understandable for the customer – make the text but again total vulnerable. In this specific case, the instruction had given the impression according to the applicants, the deadline for withdrawal would have begun to run when the bank had handed over the signed contract.
Consumer advocates advertise together to revoke the loan and to draw in court if necessary. Armin Maier choice from the office Trewius has the Order cancellation of several banks checked for errors – among others he lists savings banks, cooperative banks, the German Credit Bank, DSL Bank and ING-DiBa. Observers expect that it will eventually come to fundamental judgments – but only after June 21, when it is too late for most consumers.