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

Greetings,
I had an auto loan tied to a Swiss Franc loan—that debt was fully settled and closed about three years ago.
My question concerns whether pursuing litigation against the bank is actually worth the effort. Specifically, can anyone provide an estimate of the total financial exposure if I lose the case? I am looking for a rough idea of the combined costs involving legal fees and potential court-ordered damages...

Much appreciated,

Nathan Reyes56 said:Greetings,
I had an auto loan tied to a Swiss Franc loan—that debt was fully settled and closed about three years ago.
My question concerns whether pursuing litigation against the bank is actually worth the effort. Specifically, can anyone provide an estimate of the total financial exposure if I lose the case? I am looking for a rough idea of the combined costs involving legal fees and potential court-ordered damages...

Much appreciated,

It is difficult to provide an estimate off the top of my head.
It depends entirely on the hourly rate you negotiate with your attorney, how long the litigation drags on, and the specific court costs awarded if you lose the case. Those figures will also depend on the total amount in dispute.

I don't think the conversion error was the main issue—that’s a stretch...

The real problem is that people need to have realistic expectations when it comes to court rulings.
In my opinion, there might be some outcome, sure—but that "outcome" will likely just be a fancy dinner at a top-tier
restaurant (instead of losing a hundred thousand dollars)

@Maverick

Yeah, that clause allowing banks to hike interest rates "at their own discretion" isn't necessarily void.
Most banks—for reasons everyone already knows—saw much steeper climbs
on those Swiss Franc loans compared to
the ones pegged to the dollar.
Loans tied directly to EURIBOR or LIBOR, where the rate shifts were actually following the index,
are probably perfectly legal.

So, I had this Swiss Franc Loan back in 2008—it was finally all paid off by 2016—and the loan was originally through Wells Fargo... does anyone have a solid recommendation for a lawyer or a firm that actually handles these types of lawsuits?

Why not ask the consumer advocacy groups? We’re actually looking for a lawyer ourselves. It isn't even about the money at this point—it’s just a matter of principle...
If anyone happens to have any leads or information, please reach out...

I’m actually looking for some solid legal advice myself here.

It’s regarding an auto loan taken out between 2008 and 2015.
- I believe I've overpaid by roughly $11667

I am located in the coastal areas of Southern California.

Some things rejected in a Swiss Franc loan
http://www.seebiz.eu/preokret-u-sluc...nke/ar-181720/

while others in USD actually go through
http://www.seebiz.eu/potvrdena-prva-...ima/ar-181604/

Looks like the Supreme Court is leaning slightly toward
revising those contracts:

Patrick Carter5 said:Does that mean everyone who went through with the conversion actually made a mistake?

I suspect we might just be looking at some media spin here.

The conversion process did manage to resolve about half of the issues surrounding this whole situation, though I suppose the problem regarding variable interest rates remains entirely unresolved.

From a legal standpoint, it seems to me that anyone who completed the conversion could still pursue lawsuits, which, based on how things have unfolded so far, should probably have a fairly strong chance of resulting in rulings in favor of the borrowers—a sentiment that has been echoed several times by the Anti-Swiss Franc Association.

It feels somewhat unfortunate that The Administration didn't seem to have the courage to settle this matter decisively in one go; they really could have if they had simply accepted Alexandrov's proposal in Congress, which would have allowed for compensation for everyone without needing to go through the courts.

I don't mean to praise the Democratic Party, Joe Biden, or Lalovac, but I guess they at least showed enough initiative to address that one contentious part involving currency volatility, whereas The Administration hasn't done much for debtors at all, even though Congress had everything laid out right there—a finished legislative proposal, a Supreme Court ruling, and all—they just needed to pass the bill.

As it stands, I don't see much choice left other than filing individual lawsuits, which will likely just further clog up the judicial system, though I'm not quite sure whose interest that serves, unless perhaps the banks are hoping these sorts of media spins might intimidate or discourage people from pursuing individual claims, thereby slightly mitigating their potential losses.

And that is precisely why, I believe, I hope, and truly want to see as many people as possible decide to move forward with those lawsuits.

Money will show up eventually—enough for a decent burger, at least. I’m telling you...

http://www.seebiz.eu/presuda-splitsk...ate/ar-183260/

We’re definitely suing for the currency differences and interest—and honestly, for the sheer absurdity of it all. One of these claims is bound to stick. We aren't just going to let them walk away after they've already squeezed us dry for years. Now that the ruling on the Swiss Franc loan is finally in, we’re moving full steam ahead!
Everyone who qualifies should be filing their suit immediately.

Hey everyone, I have a quick question regarding what happens once a mortgage is fully paid off to the bank. Specifically, I’m looking at a loan taken out back in 2005 where the first and second tranches are set to expire in March 2019. What exactly kicks in after that? How does the repayment structure work from that point on? Also, is there any possibility of reprogramming the terms here? Up until now, we've been paying around 4.3%, but I see that current interest rates on FHA loans are sitting somewhere between 3% and 3.3%. On top of that, has anyone here had any actual experience dealing with paying off the full debt owed to the FHA? Any insight would be greatly appreciated! Best regards.

Hey there. I had an auto loan back in the day, running from about 2007 through 2014 with JP Morgan Chase. We originally signed for roughly $115 $0.00, but by the end, I’d actually paid back closer to $190 $0.00. The whole thing was paid off right on schedule, and we never dealt with any currency conversions. Given that history, what are the odds that a lawsuit would actually hold up?

Hi everyone! A colleague of mine is currently dealing with a Swiss Franc loan. He’s already joined AARP, his paperwork is all in order, and everything is straightforward on his end—it's a very clean situation. Right now, he's just looking for a solid lawyer recommendation. Does anyone have someone they can suggest? Feel free to shoot me a DM.

I’ve been trying to track down that specific list of attorneys through the official AARP website, but I found myself a bit distracted after yesterday’s meeting in Cleveland... they mentioned this one lawyer based right there in town who isn't actually on the provided list, yet apparently she's already handled several cases and even secured a win in a recent dispute.
Does anyone happen to have the name of that attorney handy?
On a separate note, I am also looking for recommendations for a court expert in the Cleveland area who could handle some necessary calculations...
I heard a rumor about a gentleman named Peter, but word is he's completely booked out for at least the next month.
Thanks!
.....feel free to shoot me a DM if you know anything......

Supreme Court Rules: Banks Illegally Raised Interest Rates on Swiss Franc Loans

The Supreme Court released a ruling today stating that the decisions made by banks regarding variable interest rates on Swiss Franc loans—specifically those occurring between January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2014—were not legally sound. It seems the reasoning is that these institutions failed to align their "variable rate adjustment practices" with the specific requirements set out in the Consumer Credit Act.

The banks are about to get shaken up 🙂

https://money.usnews.com/news/articles/example-link-about-legal-mess/8682824/

Basically, the Supreme Court ruled that just because a consumer signed an amendment to their loan agreement—you know, to switch everything over to USD—it doesn't mean they lose their legal standing to challenge whether specific terms in the original loan were actually illegal or void from the start. According to the court's reasoning, if a contract is void by law, it's dead on arrival the moment it's signed. Even if the reason it was void disappears later, the contract doesn't suddenly become valid again unless you meet some super specific, rare exceptions under the Civil Code, which clearly aren't happening here.

The court’s whole point is that consumers absolutely have a legal interest in proving certain clauses are void so they can actually fight for the money they think they're owed. They basically called out the lower courts for being totally wrong when they claimed people couldn't sue just because they signed a follow-up amendment to change the terms. Like, seriously? Total logic fail.

Big shoutout to AARP. 🙏
And hey, what's up to all my buddies in Bohacek's crew from the first part of this thread! 🙂
Even with a broken justice system like ours, you guys still managed to be dead wrong. Can you even wrap your heads around how much you missed the mark here?

Hey everyone from the first part of this thread, and just like
I said back then:
"Every high comes with its own low."

Just hang in there... things will settle themselves out eventually.