AARP (and related discussions on Swiss Franc loans) (II)
in Banking, Insurance & Loans ·
Patrick Carter5 said:10 %
Since when has that price list been active?
Down here on the coast, we're looking at 20%. 🙄
13 posts shown.
Patrick Carter5 said:10 %
Peter Palmer said:Here:
Look, you guys are jumping between talking about exchange rates and total invalidity. Don't take this personally, but people read into things. When things get confusing, they hesitate. I know a few people who backed out of legal action because the messaging was too muddled...
I'm not trying to argue, I'm just correcting the terminology so people don't get mixed up.
I have no clue why anyone took that as an endorsement. 🙂
Good luck to that absolute zero.
I didn't side with that total loser because nobody actually knows how the statute of limitations applies to voiding these contracts.
mistyhawk17 said:Hey there!
It’s truly heartening to see the veterans of the Swiss Franc Loan wars still active on this forum, alive, well, and apparently still ready to fight the good fight.
I have to admit, after everything that went down during the initial chaos, I practically lost my mind a little bit. Once interest rates finally stabilized, I was actually quite content, which led me to nearly forget about filing a lawsuit altogether. Eventually, I tracked down an attorney, handed over a mountain of paperwork—the details of which I’d rather not even dwell on—and after he ran the numbers to see if it was actually worth our while, he decided to pull the trigger and file the suit at the very last minute.
Peter Palmer said:There isn't much to debate, but technically you aren't suing to invalidate just the currency clause—you're going after the entire contract. You know how the law works; if you change the order of three words, suddenly everyone has a different interpretation.
By the way, that class-action ruling (the reason why every lawsuit claiming a specific provision is invalid is basically a slam dunk) was about the INVALIDITY OF THE PROVISION, not the invalidity of the entire contract.
So, there’s no guarantee you can claim the whole contract is void because of the VK or the interest rates (even if common sense tells you it should be)... nor is there anything in the class-action precedent to back that up. That contract will only be declared void if a judge decides it is. This type of lawsuit isn't nearly as certain as the ones targeting the specific provision itself.
Look, I'm interested too, but I can say with pretty high certainty that the lawyer is talking absolute nonsense here.
Peter Palmer said:There isn't much to debate, but technically you aren't suing to invalidate just the currency clause—you're going after the entire contract. You know how the law works; if you change the order of three words, suddenly everyone has a different interpretation.
By the way, that class-action ruling (the reason why every lawsuit claiming a specific provision is invalid is basically a slam dunk) was about the INVALIDITY OF THE PROVISION, not the invalidity of the entire contract.
So, there’s no guarantee you can claim the whole contract is void because of the VK or the interest rates (even if common sense tells you it should be)... nor is there anything in the class-action precedent to back that up. That contract will only be declared void if a judge decides it is. This type of lawsuit isn't nearly as certain as the ones targeting the specific provision itself.
Look, I'm interested too, but I can say with pretty high certainty that the lawyer is talking absolute nonsense here.
Peter Palmer said:Look, I’m no lawyer, and I don't spend my days digging through legal briefs, but let's be honest: people using casual slang to describe serious stuff can get incredibly confusing. 🙂 You’re basically suing to void the entire contract by proving that the currency clause is invalid—arguing that without it, the whole deal falls apart. So, you've got lawsuits targeting specific unenforceable clauses, and then you've got lawsuits aimed at killing the entire agreement altogether. 🙂
You might want to run that by a lawyer one more time. Seriously. Let’s say you somehow managed to get the entire contract voided—you think the bank is just going to sit back? They'll be at your door demanding $200 before you can even blink. $0.00So, those numbers came out exactly how you laid it out—the bank is refunding everything paid back, interest and all. Regarding that 200... $0.00, 50 $0.00 It’s all wasted on interest. Those monthly payments you're making already include the interest portions. You guys were already paid out on those interests back when that first court ruling became final.
Look, you guys should have been getting a $50 payout by now. $0.00That’s an extra $150,000 if you win that second lawsuit, bringing the total to $200,000. $0.00Your lawyer is telling you that you’re going to walk away with 250. $0.00Basically, what this means is that the bank will end up owing you about 50 bucks back in overpaid interest. $0.00 Pay twice for the same thing? I wouldn't call that a good deal.
Peter Palmer said:Look, I’m no lawyer, and I don't spend my days digging through legal briefs, but let's be honest: people using casual slang to describe serious stuff can get incredibly confusing. 🙂 You’re basically suing to void the entire contract by proving that the currency clause is invalid—arguing that without it, the whole deal falls apart. So, you've got lawsuits targeting specific unenforceable clauses, and then you've got lawsuits aimed at killing the entire agreement altogether. 🙂
You might want to run that by a lawyer one more time. Seriously. Let’s say you somehow managed to get the entire contract voided—you think the bank is just going to sit back? They'll be at your door demanding $200 before you can even blink. $0.00So, those numbers came out exactly how you laid it out—the bank is refunding everything paid back, interest and all. Regarding that 200... $0.00, 50 $0.00 It’s all wasted on interest. Those monthly payments you're making already include the interest portions. You guys were already paid out on those interests back when that first court ruling became final.
Look, you guys should have been getting a $50 payout by now. $0.00That’s an extra $150,000 if you win that second lawsuit, bringing the total to $200,000. $0.00Your lawyer is telling you that you’re going to walk away with 250. $0.00Basically, what this means is that the bank will end up owing you about 50 bucks back in overpaid interest. $0.00 Pay twice for the same thing? I wouldn't call that a good deal.
Peter Palmer said:Look, this just isn't right. They aren't the same thing. There's a difference between "void provisions" and a "void contract." In the first case, you're looking at interest rates and currency clauses. In the second, you have a "void contract"—that's when a judge decides the entire agreement can't stand because the core terms are invalid.
So, suing over the currency clause is NOT THE SAME as suing to void the entire contract.
P.S. If you actually win on the grounds of the contract being void, the bank pays out everything you listed, which includes those overpaid interest amounts. Since you've already been paid that, I don't see any way they’d pay you twice for the exact same thing.
Sent from mobile
Peter Palmer said:You really should have sued over the currency exchange issue too, especially since you finished paying it off before the conversion happened. But honestly, if you’re going after the whole contract being declared void and actually win, there shouldn't be any reason to complain.
From what I understand, once you secure a judgment for those overpaid interest charges and then pivot to suing for total invalidity and win, you end up with the amount you were actually supposed to pay (all those installments plus interest, minus the principal), just offset by whatever they already paid you from the first ruling. So, even if you successfully sued for the currency difference and won, the net gain would just be swallowed up by the difference in the two payouts. In the end, it basically evens out to the same thing.
Sent from mobile
Casey Cook10 said:so, you thinking about jumping on that lawsuit too?
(maybe once you've wiped all that greasy burger fat off your hands, just write)
Timothy Kim9 said:Kudos once again, and thanks for the heads-up 🙂
Bryan Rivera83 said:Look, if I’m not mistaken, the losing side also has to cough up legal fees based on the standard bar association rates. Plus, there's usually an extra percentage tacked onto that as well. Just saying. Thanks.
Bryan Rivera83 said:So, how much did you guys end up shelling out for an attorney, and what’s the actual deal you made with them? You can just DM me if you can't post the specifics publicly. Honestly, I feel like any lawyer I talk to is just trying to skin me alive, so I really need to compare notes here to see if I'm getting ripped off. Thanks.
Timothy Kim9 said:Nice, congrats 🙂.
A colleague and I actually filed a lawsuit—we’ve already been through way more than you have at this stage 😁
If you don't mind me asking, though—how long did it take from filing the claim until now?
thnx