Loan repayment claim? OLG Stuttgart corrects LG Stuttgart:

Always fighting Loan repayment claims from long-canceled loans.

The LG Stuttgart (ruling of May 10, 2019, 12 O 398/18) and then the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court (ruling of October 20, 2020, 6 U 250/19) recently had to decide a case where the main dispute was whether the loan repayment claim – in the amount of around € 40,000.00 – statute barred and had been forfeited.

The effectiveness of the notice of termination was no longer disputed recently. Compliance with the requirements of Section 498 of the German Civil Code (BGB) also remained undisputed.

The action had mainly taken place because the Higher Regional Court, in terms of limitation, the Inhibition regulation of § 497 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 BGB considered applicable to the loan repayment claim after termination of the loan and somti did not consider a limitation period to be given in the specific case. The OLG relied on a current ruling by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH, ruling of July 14, 2020, XI ZR 553/19).

The OLG also considered the required reminder to be given, even if this was accompanied by the lender’s declaration of termination and was not issued separately, i.e. the termination and reminder – these had been preceded by the threat of termination – were contained in a letter.

In the present case, the ten-year maximum period of Section 497 (3) sentence 3 BGB was not reached either.

Furthermore, the higher regional court also denied the fact of forfeiture.

This is because the OLG did not consider at least the so-called circumstance factor to be fulfilled.

Conclusion:

The present case shows that borrowers should regularly have the prerequisites for an effective loan termination – as well as the statute of limitations of loan repayment claims and possible forfeiture facts – checked by a lawyer.

Implementing consumer loan regulations is prone to error for banks and other lenders. The formalities and correctness of the content of the threat of termination, reminders and termination also harbor risks, which often gives borrowers affected the opportunity to effectively evade the lender’s demands for loan repayment.

Attorney Dr. Martin Heinzelmann, LL.M., specialist lawyer for banking and capital markets law (law firm MPH Legal Services), represents your interests – also in loan disputes – nationwide.

www.mph-legal.de

–