Termination policy for real estate loans
For many real estate loans, the revocation option has expired in the meantime. Land loan – and the termination policy. Real Estate Loans – and the Termination Policy Under what conditions does the lender clearly inform a consumer as a borrower about the beginning of the withdrawal period? The BGH had to deal with this problem in connection with a real estate loan: For the litigation resolved here, the plaintiffs as consumers in August 2010 with the accused savings bank a real estate loan agreement for a final maturity of EUR 243,000 with a deadline of 31. http://snurse-l.org/settle-payday-loans/ has more details
December 2026, which provides for an interest rate of 3.95% pa for ten years.
The savings bank has stated the annual percentage of the burden at 3.78% pa According to No. 14 of the Loan Agreement, it has issued a revocation notice which, inter alia, contained the following text (without footnote): “The periods shall start after conclusion of the contract, but only after the borrower has received all the information required under 492 (2) BGB (eg Reference to the annual interest rate, information on the contract procedure to be observed at the time of termination of the contract, reference to the supervisory authority responsible for deposit insurance) “.
The debtors ordered a mortgage
As security, the debtors ordered a mortgage. The savings bank provides the savings bank to the debtors. Borrowers withdrew their letter of intent to conclude the loan agreement on 28 April 2013. The State Court dismissed its demand for a verdict that they owed the Bank from the deadline 31 December 2013 “from the repealed loan agreement” only 265,737.99 minus five percentage points above the prime rate of 32,778.30 euros interest, as well as the payment of attorney’s fees at first instance1, while the dismissed the complaint.
By decision of 16 May 20163, referring to the same form of the DRC, the ruled that the external presentation of the cancellation policy complied with the legal requirements: the patterns in parentheses do not meet the legal requirements as they contain “mandatory information “, which were not relevant to the mortgage lending agreement of the borrower, with references to the procedure to be followed upon termination of the contract.
The reference to these two further mandatory details, however, was the bank’s offer accepted by the borrowers to make the start of the notice period dependent on the further determination of these two details in the mortgage loan agreement. However, the complaint was not confirmed because the bank did not specify its supervision in the mortgage agreement and thus did not fulfill all the conditions from which it itself delimited the beginning of the waiting period.
After the remittance of the case, the OLG now has to examine whether the borrowers have abused right in the context of the exercise of the opposition and what are the legal consequences of the withdrawal of the borrower – assuming it takes effect.