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

Master, based on this ruling, I’m questioning if they can even collect on these loans at all.
Ali, you'd have to sue based on this decision first, then file another suit for the actual amount
that ended up being charged

Just one question here:
Has the Supreme Court reached a final decision on whether those loans tied to currency clauses are actually null and void? If they eventually rule that they are—what does that even look like in practice? Does that ruling apply strictly to people holding a Swiss Franc loan, or does it cover every single loan in America tied to such a clause? I mean, isn't the vast majority of our credit market built on these exact types of clauses?

Thx

Nothingness basically means—everyone gets back exactly what they put in.
No one side has any right to claim some "special" interest rate.

That ruling isn't ever going to happen.

I wonder where all those helpful little banking trolls are hiding, you know, the ones who love telling us how useless the Supreme Court is.
They're probably busy explaining why we don't stand a chance against some big bank's legal team in court, or how everything is just going to fall apart once it hits the European Union courts...

Oh, wait, I think I see them now, working their first shift over on The Washington Post's comment section.

A real expert on nothingness—supposedly our judges are rooting for
some kind of settlement just to smooth things over, rather than actually voiding the whole mess.

The European Court—if you're looking strictly at this one ruling—is playing by a different set of rules.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/court-ruling-example

(Even with the conversion having happened, they still consider the entire contract null and void.)

Timothy Kim9 said:Nothingness basically means—everyone gets back exactly what they put in.
No one side has any right to claim some "special" interest rate.

That ruling isn't ever going to happen.

I wouldn't say that bolded part is actually true. If someone is responsible for making a contract null and void, they should still be on the hook for late fees. And I mean on the total amount paid, not just some fraction.

Timothy Kim9 said:Nothingness basically means—everyone gets back exactly what they put in.
No one side has any right to claim some "special" interest rate.

That ruling isn't ever going to happen.

Exactly. No right to "their" specific interest. But if the contract is voided, the victim (the consumer) is entitled to statutory default interest on every single payment made to the bank.
The amount involved isn't exactly small...

Peter Palmer said:I wouldn't say that bolded part is actually true. If someone is responsible for making a contract null and void, they should still be on the hook for late fees. And I mean on the total amount paid, not just some fraction.

Exactly.

Alright, exactly 🙂

Jerry Williams53 said:Exactly. No right to "their" specific interest. But if the contract is voided, the victim (the consumer) is entitled to statutory default interest on every single payment made to the bank.
The amount involved isn't exactly small...

On a car loan of about 100 $0.00, the fees end up being more than double what you actually overpaid. 🙂

I’ve been sitting here wondering if it makes more sense to go ahead and sue the bank right now over that currency clause, or if I should just hang tight and wait for the Supreme Court to make a final ruling on whether these contracts are actually void. I mean, is there a way to play it smart—maybe file the lawsuit for the exchange rate issue now, and then, if the Supreme Court eventually rules that the whole contract is invalid during the proceedings, just tack on the claim for nullity later on?

Greetings to all the old-timers here!
I’d like to ask the moderators if we could please revive this original thread that was closed on the old forums. I truly believe it serves as a great example for everyone else of how much can be achieved when people take the initiative to organize themselves and push for positive change...

As far back as I can recall, the moderators have almost exclusively sided with the banks—they simply won't publish anything. Regardless, the lawsuit has been filed, and the final act is finally beginning 🍿

Patrick Carter5 said:I’ve been sitting here wondering if it makes more sense to go ahead and sue the bank right now over that currency clause, or if I should just hang tight and wait for the Supreme Court to make a final ruling on whether these contracts are actually void. I mean, is there a way to play it smart—maybe file the lawsuit for the exchange rate issue now, and then, if the Supreme Court eventually rules that the whole contract is invalid during the proceedings, just tack on the claim for nullity later on?

Personally... I don't think there's any need to rush into suing for the currency stuff yet. We've got until summer 2023. By then, things should be clearer regarding whether these contracts are actually voided. It'll make deciding on an invalidity lawsuit way easier once we know where we stand.
Obviously, everyone's gotta do what works for them. But again... no need to hurry.

Jerry Wood11 said:As far back as I can recall, the moderators have almost exclusively sided with the banks—they simply won't publish anything. Regardless, the lawsuit has been filed, and the final act is finally beginning 🍿

It was pretty wild watching everyone label us as greedy just because we went after those lower interest rates. Like we're all financially illiterate or something...
Feeling a little nostalgic for those old days...
So, first it’s the interest rates, then the currency goes south... at this rate, we'll be dealing with broken contracts next. Might as well just throw in the towel on the whole thing...

Jerry Wood11 said:As far back as I can recall, the moderators have almost exclusively sided with the banks—they simply won't publish anything. Regardless, the lawsuit has been filed, and the final act is finally beginning 🍿

Your memory serves you well... ☕

They kept insisting we’d already signed on the dotted line, but what exactly are they playing at now? One legal expert after another keeps coming out of the woodwork with these claims... 😁

It’s true—you were right all along. Or, to be more precise, you managed to take it to court and prove that those past decisions, which I’d personally call poor decisions, shouldn't just affect a few individuals. Now, they’re being publicly called out for what they actually were: wrong.

On a human level, I am genuinely glad to see people banding together to finally "win" against that lazy combination of a negligent Federal Reserve and predatory commercial banks.

Now, for a practical question: if someone took out a Swiss Franc Loan back in 2007, but then refinanced it through the same bank using USD just a year or two later, is there any ground to claim compensation? Even with the second loan, the interest rates ended up being just as insane as the original ones.

neondriver5 said:It’s true—you were right all along. Or, to be more precise, you managed to take it to court and prove that those past decisions, which I’d personally call poor decisions, shouldn't just affect a few individuals. Now, they’re being publicly called out for what they actually were: wrong.

On a human level, I am genuinely glad to see people banding together to finally "win" against that lazy combination of a negligent Federal Reserve and predatory commercial banks.

Now, for a practical question: if someone took out a Swiss Franc Loan back in 2007, but then refinanced it through the same bank using USD just a year or two later, is there any ground to claim compensation? Even with the second loan, the interest rates ended up being just as insane as the original ones.

Go check Facebook—there are tons of groups now (unfortunately): various consumer advocacy groups, civic initiatives regarding these predatory loans, even AARP-style organizations. Post your question there. From what I gather, everyone seems to have grounds for a lawsuit, whether it concerns the old currency or the current USD regarding interest rates. Your only real hurdle is figuring out if the five-year statute of limitations has already kicked in.

Saw this earlier today—relevant to what we were talking about...