Real estate loans: Avoid, reduce or recover early repayment penalties

Any­one who wants to or has to re­pay their real es­tate con­sumer loan with a fixed bor­row­ing rate (real es­tate loan for short) to the bank be­fore the agreed end of the in­terest period must ex­pect the bank to de­mand pay­ment of an early re­pay­ment pen­alty. The reason for this is that the bank loses in­terest due to the early re­pay­ment, which it would have re­ceived if the loan had not been re­paid un­til the agreed date. The bank is at­tempt­ing to ob­tain com­pens­a­tion for the loss and profit it has in­curred through the re­quired pre­pay­ment pen­alty (also known as an early re­pay­ment fee or charge).

The de­man­ded early re­pay­ment fees are still very high, av­er­aging around 10 per­cent of the re­main­ing cap­ital, ac­cord­ing to a study pub­lished in Novem­ber 2019 by the mar­ket watch­dog team of the con­sumer cen­ter Bre­men. It makes many bor­row­ers shy away from res­chedul­ing their old, high-​interest real es­tate loans – des­pite (or be­cause of) the cur­rent ex­tremely low in­terest rate level.

After the com­pu­ta­tions of the con­sumer ad­voc­ate were too high in three of four of the ex­amined cases (77 per cent) the pre­pay­ment pen­al­ties de­man­ded by the banks. The de­term­ined dif­fer­ence between the pre­pay­ment pen­al­ties de­man­ded by the credit in­sti­tu­tions and those cal­cu­lated by the con­sumer cen­ter amoun­ted to an av­er­age of 5 per­cent in fa­vor of the borrowers.

No mat­ter for what reason you want to ter­min­ate the con­tract early, the ques­tion al­ways arises whether you have to pay an early re­pay­ment pen­alty charged by the bank. How­ever, as a con­sumer, you do not have to ac­cept any de­mand from the bank without a second thought, be­cause the pre­pay­ment pen­alty of­ten turns out to be un­jus­ti­fied or much too high!

For all real es­tate loan agree­ments that were con­cluded between June 2010 and today, there are ba­sic­ally two op­tions that can be used to ward off the bank’s claim. Which one comes into con­sid­er­a­tion for you de­pends on your spe­cific in­di­vidual case.

Avoiding or recovering early repayment penalties through revocation

First of all, it is ob­vi­ous to check the re­voc­a­tion op­tions of the real es­tate loan. In more than half of all loan agree­ments con­cluded after June 11, 2010, there are in­cor­rect re­voc­a­tion in­struc­tions or in­cor­rect or in­com­plete man­dat­ory in­form­a­tion re­quired by law (e.g., if the con­sumer was not prop­erly in­formed of his or her right of re­voc­a­tion). The courts have so far iden­ti­fied more than 400 in­cor­rect for­mu­la­tions in the re­voc­a­tion instructions.

If your loan agree­ment also con­tains such er­rors, the agree­ment can be re­voked and un­wound – even years after it was con­cluded. In the case of real es­tate loans, there is gen­er­ally a right of re­voc­a­tion of 14 days, provided that the re­voc­a­tion in­form­a­tion is cor­rect. If, on the other hand, the bor­rower was in­cor­rectly in­formed, he can still re­voke his con­tract bey­ond this period.

For real es­tate loan agree­ments con­cluded since March 21, 2016, how­ever, there is a re­stric­tion: Even in the case of in­cor­rect re­voc­a­tion in­form­a­tion, the re­voc­a­tion can only be de­clared ret­ro­act­ively for twelve months plus 14 days (the reg­u­lar re­voc­a­tion period)! The reason for this is the spe­cial stat­utory pro­vi­sion for real es­tate con­sumer loan agree­ments of the Ger­man Civil Code (Sec­tion 356b (2) BGB).

The suc­cess­ful re­voc­a­tion of a con­tract has the con­sequence that it is treated as if it had never ex­is­ted. This in turn means that the bor­rower does not have to pay any early re­pay­ment pen­alty or can re­cover any early re­pay­ment pen­alty already paid: If no con­tract ex­ists, lo­gic­ally no com­pens­a­tion can be claimed.

How­ever, this solu­tion is of­ten not pos­sible: Some­times a re­voc­a­tion is no longer pos­sible in terms of time, some­times the re­voc­a­tion was cor­rectly in­struc­ted or the com­plete re­versal of the con­tract proves to be un­eco­nom­ical due to the refinancing.

But even in cases where re­voc­a­tion is not (or no longer) pos­sible, the early re­pay­ment pen­alty can usu­ally be sig­ni­fic­antly re­duced and of­ten even com­pletely avoided.

The ini­tial con­sulta­tion with us is free of charge. Please feel free to con­tact us directly.

How to reach us

Schirp & Part­ner Recht­san­wälte mbB
Leipzi­ger Platz 9
10117 Ber­lin, Germany

Phone: +49 (0)30 – 327 617 0
Fax: +49 (0)30 – 327 617 17
E-​Mail: mail@​schirp.​com

Legal Advisory Label

Please take note that we can not answer consultatively here. If you happen to request that anyways, you may give us full power of attorney. For that, simply download this form, sign it and return it to us.

News

Kaufangebote der VENQO AG

VENQO AG will An­legern “tox­is­che” Beteili­gun­gen ab­kaufen Dem AAA wird na­hezu täg­lich be­stätigt, dass ins­beson­dere An­leger, die bereits mit einer Kapit­alan­lage im sog. Grauen Kapit­al­markt Schiff­bruch erlit­ten haben, Ge­fahr laufen, ein wei­t­eres Mal über den Tisch gezo­gen zu wer­den. Clevere Be­trüger nutzen aus, dass die Hoffnung, einen Teil des bereits ver­loren ge­glaub­ten Kapit­als zurück­zuer­hal­ten, die […]

Hilfe für Fondsanleger kann auch schaden — Was Fondsanleger tun können, um sich vor unseriöser Beratung zu schützen

Der Ak­tions­bund Akt­iver An­leger­s­chutz nimmt häufig Kon­takt zu Fond­san­legern auf, um In­teressen zu bündeln und aus­reichend Voll­machten zur Ein­beru­fung von Gesell­schafterver­sammlungen zu sam­meln. Die Latte dafür hängt ziem­lich hoch, meist bei 20 % des Fond­skapit­als. Auf den Gesell­schafterver­sammlungen sol­len dann je nach Fonds en­tweder Beiräte in­stal­liert, Son­der­prü­fun­gen ver­an­lasst oder sogar die Geschäfts­führung aus­get­auscht wer­den. Sol­che Maßnahmen, […]

Dringender Aufklärungsbedarf bei den MAP Fonds von Illya Steiner

AAA prüft die Beteili­gung­s­port­folien der MAP Fonds von Ilya Steiner hinsicht­lich ihrer Wirtschaft­lich­keit Es fing ganz harm­los an. Eines un­serer Mit­glieder hatte uns im Früh­jahr 2022 ge­b­eten, ein­mal den MAP An­s­par Plan Fonds 3 der Un­ternehmens­gruppe von Dr. Il­lya Steiner aus Ham­burg et­was näher an­zuse­hen, weil er dort noch laufend Ein­zahlun­gen leisten würde. Er würde jetzt […]

Enorme Wertberichtigungen bei ThomasLloyd

ThomasLloyd CTI Hold­ing hat laut Jahresab­schluss 2020 mehr als 100 Mil­lionen Euro abges­chrieben. Die ThomasLloyd Cleantech In­fra­struc­ture Hold­ing GmbH (TL CTI Hold­ing GmbH) ist die Gesell­schaft der ThomasLloyd Group, über die die meisten In­vest­i­tionen getätigt wer­den sol­len. Die ThomasLloyd Fonds geben zu diesem Zweck das An­legerkapital an diese Gesell­schaft weiter. Der Jahresab­schluss 2020 hätte bis […]

Versäumnisurteil gegen zwei Unternehmen der Steiner-Gruppe

S + C Treuhand GmbH und Steiner + Com­pany GmbH & Co. KG lassen sich im Gericht­ster­min nicht ver­tre­ten. Ein An­leger, der sich über das Emis­sion­shaus Steiner direkt an einer Wohnan­lage in Dubai beteiligt hat, prozessiert ge­gen die S + C Treuhand GmbH, die Steiner + Com­pany GmbH & Co. KG und die En­gels & Völk­ers Re­sorts GmbH, weil die […]

Fehlerhafte Abstimmungsunterlagen bei ThomasLloyd

Nachdem der Ak­tions­bund Akt­iver An­leger­s­chutz e.V. die Ab­stim­mung zu über­höhten Pro­vi­sionen bean­stan­det hatte, erklärte ThomasLloyd ge­genüber nachfra­genden An­legern, die Ab­stim­mung­sun­ter­la­gen seien tat­säch­lich fehler­haft. Wir haben ver­gan­gene Woche darüber berichtet, dass An­leger des ThomasLloyd Fonds Zweite Cleantech In­frastruk­turgesell­schaft mbH & Co. KG ents­prechend den ak­tuel­len Ab­stim­mung­sun­ter­la­gen nicht nur die Geschäfts­führung und die Treuhän­derin entlasten, son­dern auch deut­lich über […]

All Announcements »

Copyright © Schirp & Partner Solicitors | Legal Notice | Privacy Statement
Zum Seitenanfang