In the process wave to the termination of savings contracts, the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart decided the first court of appeal in favor of a Sparerin. Bausparkasse Wüstenrot have no right to terminate the contract, said Judge Thomas Wetzel. “The contract is to be continued.”
Wüstenrot had quit because the customer their savings money bunkerte for 22 years on the account and it pocketed three percent interest, retrieve take the loan.
The decision has great weight: Building societies will currently get rid of many of their clients. Your once coveted credit institutions have become the nuisance. On the capital market, they throw little interest from, and as a loan, the building societies can pass only a fraction of it. Nevertheless, they are required to pay once promised interest rates of up to five per cent – for the Institute a big loss business
Therefore, the building societies are forced to customers. put the door: Institute as Schwäbisch Hall, Landesbausparkassen or BHW have already canceled around 200,000 customers. In almost 1,000 cases depositors have complained against. So far, there were approximately 140 judgments nationwide, of which 90 percent were issued in favor of building societies. In the five cases which had been landed in second instance, savers had drawn the short straw.
“must be decided in it by the Supreme Court”
Wüstenrot had argued that the contract was terminated more than ten years after the award maturity. “We do not share this view,” said Judge Wetzel. The Bausparerin must continue to have the opportunity to take the loan in claim, even if the currently do not expect an interest rate of five percent. The ten-year period only reach once the loan is fully allocated.
Also, the statutory right of termination, to which Wüstenrot summoned, did not apply. That would only be the case if the building society have prompted the Sparerin, continue to make contributions, and this would not comply with the requirement.
Wüstenrot shall now examine an appeal against the judgment before the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), said their lawyer Herve Edelmann. Of the OLG Stuttgart goes out firmly. “Must be decided in it by the Supreme Court,” said the judge. With a public judgment instead of a written decision he would pave the way for top German court. . It finally go to million savings, said Wetzel
The principle of building societies is simple: The customer sets a time regular money aside. For this, he gets relatively little interest. But once he has saved up 40 percent of the agreed contract sum, the credit is ration ripe: The consumer may then take out a loan for which he also pays very low interest rates
When contracts as an investment. abused?
However, in times of Mini interest that was not very attractive for consumers. The time promised low interest rates by three or four percent for a property loans are no longer favorable for the industry.
The customers choose in most cases prefer for instant credit, they let the money lie at Bausparkasse and this – as contractually agreed – with three to four percent interest because that is nowadays highly attractive. But only until the home loan these customers canceled suddenly.
Little controversy there, if the consumer had already saved up the entire contract sum. Here, customers were appreciated. At issue are the policies for which not even the full contract sum has been reached, but may be for more than a decade building loans would have availed of savers but that does not matter.
The cost some building societies as an indication that the contract is being abused as a pure investment, the actual determination whether as purpose savings have been lost so – and derive from this circumstance a right of termination from. The Courts of Appeal Hamm, Koblenz, Cologne, Munich and Celle had this view also confirmed.
“Thus, is distinguished in the law, despite the decision of the OLG Stuttgart total becoming ever clearer that building societies may Pronounce layoffs,” it said in Wüstenrot. Whether this is actually true, the Supreme Court is now well set in a landmark judgment. According to the judgment of Stuttgart, the question is open again.
Readers are hidden.