AARP (and related discussions on Swiss Franc loans) (II)

Since the old thread hit its post limit, we’re moving the conversation over here.

Last post:

Robin Bailey7 said:The annual membership fee for AARP is $10, and anything paid beyond that amount is recorded as a donation.

The informal currency clause is essentially worthless

https://www.nytimes.com/news/business/us-dollar-currency-exchange-rates-impact

Kudos to everyone—I’ve finally stumbled onto something similar myself 🙂

http://www.businessinsider.com/swiss-franc-loan-disaster-342805

Congratulations 🙂

And it was almost like fate—one day I just ran into Nicole
after quite a long time 🙂

Here’s the breakdown of the ruling:

I was hoping I could ask the experts on this thread for a little bit of guidance regarding this recent ruling.
Does this decision apply to loans that have already been closed out—not just unpaid ones, but those that were fully settled through forced collection?
To be honest, I haven't been following this discussion very closely because I've been so caught up in my own personal struggles and worries, but if there is any way I could file a lawsuit now to recover some of that money, it would truly be wonderful.

Props to the folks over at AARP... caught their livestream on Facebook... this is how it's done. Even though I cleared my loan five years ago, I'm honestly thinking about filing a lawsuit.

one more 🙏🙏🙏

Given what's going on, I have to post this here. I’m looking for people in the Washington, D.C. area who took out auto loans, paid them off on time, and also went through the conversion process. We're putting together a class-action lawsuit against Bank of America. Since even AARP isn't certain about the outcome due to inconsistent court rulings, splitting the opposing side's legal costs among a larger group makes more sense if we lose. DM me. Thanks!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

mellowotter17 said:I was hoping I could ask the experts on this thread for a little bit of guidance regarding this recent ruling.
Does this decision apply to loans that have already been closed out—not just unpaid ones, but those that were fully settled through forced collection?
To be honest, I haven't been following this discussion very closely because I've been so caught up in my own personal struggles and worries, but if there is any way I could file a lawsuit now to recover some of that money, it would truly be wonderful.

If the conversion wasn't done, then obviously yes.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

To break down what this ruling actually means:

1. Anyone holding a Swiss Franc Loan who finished paying it off before the conversion—or those still grinding away at their monthly payments—can file private lawsuits to recover the full exchange rate difference, all that excess interest, and the applicable late fees.

2. For those who already went through the conversion process on their Swiss Franc Loan, you also have grounds to sue. However, I guess we should be prepared for the fact that this will likely force the Supreme Court of the United States to set a major precedent. Basically, banks are going to fight tooth and nail against anyone with converted loans, arguing that the conversion itself settled the matter. But if you look at the Obligations Act, you can't legally convert a contract provision that was void to begin with, so I suppose we all still have a right to sue. That said, I expect future rulings on these specific cases will swing both ways—favoring banks sometimes and borrowers others—until the Supreme Court eventually has to step in and make a final call, much like they did with the statute of limitations issue.

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

rowdyraven112 said:If the conversion wasn't done, then obviously yes.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

Thanks so much! The conversion didn't happen because I actually ended up feeling pretty sick right before it was supposed to go through.

I’ll definitely be treating everyone at AARP if I end up getting this money!!🎉

I've got a few questions... if anyone knows the deal, I'd really appreciate the help...

So, back in 2007, I took out a Swiss Franc Loan for a car. I finished paying it off in 2013 and everything seemed fine, but now I realize I'm entitled to a refund—interest, exchange rate differences, late fees, all of it. Here’s what I'm stuck on.

1) If I'm reading this right, the contract was declared void. Does that mean they just look at the difference between what I actually paid and what I received? Or is it the difference between my actual payments and what I *would* have paid if the exchange rate and interest had stayed the same as when I started?

2) How does the late interest get calculated? I found an online calculator, but I can't figure out if they calculate it based on the total amount from the date the loan was settled, or if they have to calculate it individually for every single monthly payment from 2007 until the end.

3) I keep a record of all my payments in Excel, but obviously, that isn't legal proof. Is Bank of America obligated to provide me with an official statement of all payments made toward that specific loan? I get that they'll charge me for the paperwork, but there's no way I can sue them based on my own Excel spreadsheet.

Look, I’m no expert—but from what I’ve gathered,
your Excel sheet might actually be a decent starting point.
The court's job is just going to be appointing someone to handle the
official math for the proceedings, and once that's done, the big banks won't have anything left to argue about.

rowdyraven112 said:If the conversion wasn't done, then obviously yes.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

We'll just have to wait and see.
If the initial loan is totally void because of these factors, then everything stemming from it is void too. If it’s null and void, the parties are supposed to return the original assets to one another...

In that scenario, I—for instance—would have already paid back the entire amount to the bank before the conversion even happened, and now I'm paying off a second loan used to close out the converted one... basically, I'd be paying back way more than what should be required if the loan were actually void.

Now, what our legal experts with actual proven expertise will come up with? That remains to be seen...

My take? They’ll probably try to "fix" those worthless contracts by
making them legally binding again.

For the converted loans, the currency issue is already handled—it's just the interest left to deal with. If I recall correctly
based on some figures out of Mexico, the compensation amount was roughly 5% of the mortgage value.

Timothy Kim9 said:Look, I’m no expert—but from what I’ve gathered,
your Excel sheet might actually be a decent starting point.
The court's job is just going to be appointing someone to handle the
official math for the proceedings, and once that's done, the big banks won't have anything left to argue about.

I reached out to Bank of America, and they told me the fee is $5.00 per line item, capped at $93. Basically, one transaction equals one fee.

I actually dug up their lending documentation where that number is listed, but it also mentions there's no fee if it's done under a court order. 🙂

I I have another question, though it’s about an Euro Loan rather than a Swiss Franc Loan.

So, here’s the deal: I took out a mortgage back in January 2009. And honestly, they were playing games with the interest rates back then too.

1) Does this whole "null and void" thing regarding interest rates apply to Euro Loans as well?

2) If my loan agreement was signed on January 16, 2009, but this Supreme Court ruling only covers loans taken out up until December 31, 2008—missing it by a measly 16 days—do I actually have any ground to stand on to cite this ruling?

nimblelynx63 said:We'll just have to wait and see.
If the initial loan is totally void because of these factors, then everything stemming from it is void too. If it’s null and void, the parties are supposed to return the original assets to one another...

In that scenario, I—for instance—would have already paid back the entire amount to the bank before the conversion even happened, and now I'm paying off a second loan used to close out the converted one... basically, I'd be paying back way more than what should be required if the loan were actually void.

Now, what our legal experts with actual proven expertise will come up with? That remains to be seen...

I'm actually in the exact same boat. About 13 years ago, I took out a loan in dollars for the same amount I needed to pay off the converted credit, which means when you factor in everything I've paid over these last 13 years, I've basically handed them the whole thing right from the start.
What I'm really wondering about is whether anyone is actually working on the math to figure out if filing a lawsuit is even worth the trouble. I also completely agree that joining a class-action suit with someone else who took out a mortgage back in 2005 at Bank of America would probably be the smartest move, assuming the conditions were the same.

Timothy Kim9 said:My take? They’ll probably try to "fix" those worthless contracts by
making them legally binding again.

For the converted loans, the currency issue is already handled—it's just the interest left to deal with. If I recall correctly
based on some figures out of Mexico, the compensation amount was roughly 5% of the mortgage value.

Does that mean everyone who went through with the conversion actually made a mistake?