Banks arbitrarily change their mortgage repayment methods, where is the "spirit of contract"?
■ Come on
In October 2013, Mr. Pu, a citizen of Nanjing, applied for a 20-year mortgage of 1.17 million yuan at the Nanjing branch of Minsheng Bank and agreed to repay the loan in the form of "equal principal and interest".
But recently, Mr. Pu discovered that he had repaid his mortgage for more than 7 years, and his principal was still 1.17 million.
It turned out that the bank arbitrarily changed the repayment method to "interest first, then principal": the interest was paid first, and the principal amount of 1.17 million yuan was returned once upon maturity.
According to Mr. Pu's account, he may repay an additional 300,000 to 400,000 yuan.
The repayment method is the core content of the loan contract and determines the rights and obligations of both parties.
However, the two repayment methods are suitable for different groups of people, and there is no difference between good and bad.
"Interest before capital" is more suitable for emergency situations such as doing business and paying monthly rent, and is generally not used for mortgages.
Mr. Pu is "unstoppable" at the bank's change of repayment methods, but for people who lack cash in the short term, it may be too much.
Therefore, the key point of this matter is that even if it is beneficial to the borrower, the unilateral change of the contract by the bank is suspected of breaking the law.
The loan contract is the result of the mutual agreement of the borrower and the lender, and both parties must strictly perform it. This is the "spirit of the contract".
Returning to this matter, during Mr. Pu’s negotiations with the bank, the bank staff once asked: “This is written using the equal principal and interest method. The total monthly repayment of principal and interest is 8092.95 yuan, but only when it was paid back in 2014 5609 yuan, did you not find out at that time?” It means that Mr. Pu knows and approves the change of the repayment method.
Mr. Pu responded, “Because deductions, transfers, and calculation of the amount are all problems with the bank, I am only responsible for depositing the money on my card and automatically repaying it”.
It should be said that the response is in place. His obligations as a lender have been fulfilled. The current problem is entirely caused by the bank's unauthorized modification of the contract.
And Mr. Pu is not subject to this invalid contract.
The contract signed by the two parties in 2013 is the only legal document for determining the relationship between rights and obligations, and Mr. Pu can request to continue to repay the loan according to the agreed method; if there is evidence that this change caused actual losses for him, he can also claim compensation .
Borrowing from a bank, the borrower is already at a relatively disadvantaged side, and the bank basically has the final say on the level of interest and the method of repayment.
In this reality, if the "hole" of the bank to tamper with the contract is not completely blocked, the rights and interests of the borrower will be difficult to protect.
In this regard, this case is enough to cause social alertness.
□Li Shuming (legal practitioner)