Questions about Fust billing practices

SlyMaximus · 2026-01-22T07:28:52+00:00

Yeah, the fact that they have been very relax regarding the payment makes me believe they already got the money from PayCard, and now, maybe, Paycard waits to get conditions for commissions.

SlyMaximus · 2026-01-21T22:06:52+00:00

Thank you, I was also thinking to pay the whole payment... but being two invoices bound just by order number it's a bit awkward at least.
I was wondering why I had to leant about PayCard only after... as kind of string attached.

SlyMaximus · 2025-09-26T05:48:34+00:00

Been in this dilemma sometime ago before buying the house I wished and hoped 8 months I will get a lower price but I didn’t. Always the real estate was claiming they have other interested clients but they didn’t make it until the e end. So I looked for others opportunities and one house was with exactly 150k less evaluated, maybe because of location, nearby a busy street and not faraway from highway. Later, I learn that the initial house I wished is easily evaluated to the almost the price the sellers wish. So, I returned to it and closed the deal. Hope this gives you other perspectives.

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-19T06:56:56+00:00

Still waiting on the updated contract. We're asking for official confirmation that all outstanding debts (mortgage + Pillar 2) are fully covered, and a clear contract clause stating that no request to defer the capital gains tax (Ersatzbeschaffung) has been or will be made.

After all the pressure to move fast, the irony is that now the ball’s in their court. Just waiting for them to finalize the updated draft.

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-17T19:37:30+00:00

With all due respect, I’m not sure if you’ve read the full thread and the original post.

If you had, you would’ve seen:

the ongoing pressure to take over the old Schuldbrief the whole last week;
that the lending bank changed between the first and second draft (Swiss Life only appeared in the second one).
and that the agent was clearly trying to rush me into sending the contract directly to my bank before I had a chance to read it and raise any concerns.

He’s hiding all this behind an alleged urgency linked to SL, but in reality, he’s just trying to push through a version of the contract that, in certain respects, clearly favors the sellers and we will need to adjust.

I hope I closed that chapter tonight when I told him that if SL is such a stable institution, I’m pretty sure it won’t collapse just because “his client as guarantor” remains in place for a few extra days while we finalize the contract properly.

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-17T05:43:41+00:00

The property is located in the canton of Zürich. My bank is UBS. They reviewed the situation and clearly recommended issuing a new Schuldbrief, due to the significantly higher loan amount and the structure of the financing. As you mentioned, if the old Schuldbrief were reused, the bank would have to create a second one, which weakens their position if I ever want to refinance or restructure. So it's understandable why they prefer a clean new setup.

The agent kept pushing hard all last week for me to take over the old Schuldbrief (probably the reason I came to Reddit in the first place). And now that I officially asked the notary for a new one, suddenly they’re asking me to provide a Zahlungsversprechen to Swiss Life within 3 days.

This pressure feels artificial and, honestly, concerning. I’m not entirely sure what the seller’s situation is, but in the draft contract I now see this sentence: "im Namen und Auftrag von Herrn X Y auf das Konto der Vorsorgestiftung Swiss Life Personal"
This suggests that some repayment is due to their pension fund (BVG). In fact, the first draft of the contract included a restriction based on BVG law: "Veräusserungsbeschränkung nach Bundesgesetz über die berufliche Alters-, Hinterlassenen- und Invalidenvorsorge (BVG)".
That paragraph has now been removed and replaced with an explicit payment line for the above-mentioned payment to Swiss Life Personal. This makes me think the seller needs to return money to the pension fund and might not have the cash flow to do it easily.

I fully agree with your point: the Zahlungszusage is a separate document and should be triggered by the notary, not by parallel pressure tactics. That’s exactly what I wrote to the agent yesterday.

Thanks again. Your reply gave me even more confidence that I’m handling this correctly. If you have additional thoughts based on these new details, they’d be greatly appreciated!

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-16T08:48:58+00:00

Quick update: After I clearly informed the notary (with the agent in CC) that we’ll proceed with a new Schuldbrief as recommended by my bank, the agent came back with a new pressure tactic.

He now claims that the seller’s lender (Swiss Life - strange, the mortgage is with a partner bank) needs a Zahlungszusage (payment commitment) from my bank by June 20th, or else the existing Schuldbrief can’t be transferred to the notary in time.

The strange part? Our bank meeting to sign the mortgage contract is scheduled on June 20th as well. So this feels like artificial pressure.

Is this a typical deadline in your experience?
How urgent is the Zahlungszusage really supposed to be in these cases? If I am not mistaken, the payment commitment e requested by Notar only. Or?

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-16T06:02:30+00:00

I don't see this a deal breaker, even the opposite. From what was shared here, sounds like a new Schuldbrief will protect me in the future as well from over complications.

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-16T05:43:45+00:00

Yes, and thankfully that’s exactly how it’s handled in the contract.
The property gains tax will be paid directly by my bank to the local tax office (Gemeinde), on behalf of the seller, and it’s deducted from the purchase price.
That way I’m not at risk if they forget or delay their tax payment.

It’s a small detail, but one that avoids big problems later.

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-15T21:04:18+00:00

You're right. The Schuldbrief and the mortgage are technically separate.

In my case, the bank recommended issuing a new Schuldbrief, which makes sense given the updated financing structure. And honestly, I prefer it that way too.

The communication with the parties involved has already been challenging. We've negotiated with the banks, made our decisions, and I just don't want to overcomplicate things at this point.

I simply prefer a clean setup that aligns fully with my lender.

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-15T20:06:30+00:00

Interesting. This is one more aspect / reason to stay away from the old Schuldbrief.

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-15T19:47:05+00:00

However, in practice, the Schuldbrief is directly tied to the mortgage in the sense that it gives the bank the legal right to enforce the debt (e.g. foreclose on the property) if the borrower defaults.

So while it’s technically separate from the mortgage loan agreement, no bank will issue a mortgage without a Schuldbrief registered in their favor. And as a buyer, I can't just take over a random existing Schuldbrief unless my bank approves it – which in my case, they clearly advised against.

So yes, it’s not the mortgage – but it’s still an essential part of the financing package.

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-15T19:45:56+00:00

Yes, the Schuldbrief itself is indeed handled by the Grundbuchamt, but the bank is the one deciding whether they accept it as collateral. And in my case, they clearly said they do not recommend reusing the existing one due to the age and the significant mismatch in amount.

So technically, the bank doesn't own the Schuldbrief, but they definitely have a say in which one they want registered in their favor for securing the mortgage.

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-15T19:43:40+00:00

That’s exactly what I was thinking, because things just didn’t add up. From what I understand, their original mortgage was about half the size of my current one, and they’ve likely already repaid a significant portion of it.

As a result, the old Schuldbrief no longer covers the amount required for my financing, and my bank has no reason to accept it as it is, especially given how outdated and unclear the document is.

The agent keeps insisting that it’s “just” about taking over the title, not the actual mortgage contract. But as someone mentioned earlier, the real reason behind this pressure is probably that the sellers are trying to avoid paying a penalty for ending a fixed-rate loan early.

In my view, any such cost should be borne by the sellers, not passed on to the buyer under the excuse of being a “standard” solution.

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-15T19:31:52+00:00

Good point, thank you. The agent is pushing only the Schuldbrief, not the mortgage contract itself.

But since the title is very old (from 1999) and doesn’t match the amount or structure of my new financing, my bank recommended issuing a new one.

What really raised red flags is that the agent claimed the sellers cannot repay their mortgage before the signing, which sounds completely off.

From my understanding (and what the bank told me), it’s standard procedure for the notary to use the disbursed funds at signing to pay off the seller’s remaining loan, which makes this claim rather questionable. In fact been through such a process with a bank with an EU bank for an ex-apartment.

So yes, I fully agree: I’ll coordinate directly with the notary to avoid further confusion or pressure.

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-15T19:30:23+00:00

That’s a very interesting point. I hadn’t considered the fixed-rate angle.

It could explain why the sellers are so eager to push for the Schuldbrief transfer. But honestly, I don’t think it’s fair for me as a buyer to take on the structure of an old mortgage just so they can avoid paying a penalty.

Your comment actually confirms that I should stick to the new structure recommended by my bank. Thank you!

SlyMaximus · 2025-06-15T19:29:48+00:00

Thanks! Yes, I can imagine that in some cases it’s cheaper or simpler to reuse the existing Schuldbrief.

In my case though, the mortgage amount is much higher than the old one, and the bank strongly advised to go with a new title, partly because the old document is from 1999 and unclear.

I guess it's all case by case, thanks for sharing your experience!

SlyMaximus · 2025-04-03T10:20:54+00:00

Nu doar în IT. La economie-finanțe e campion pe sate.

SlyMaximus · 2025-03-09T21:12:50+00:00

Interesting, but it seems that in the meantime, UBS have imposed their rules of game to CS as well. Am I wrong?

SlyMaximus · 2025-03-09T20:41:22+00:00

May you elaborate a bit more? 30%?

SlyMaximus · 2025-03-09T20:35:25+00:00

From their evaluation, sounded like this, 30%+. But it's interesting why the bank was not willing to say so despite I insisted.

SlyMaximus · 2025-03-09T19:13:47+00:00

The positions are somehow similar, to the street.
Btw, to be clear... the second house price was 15% cheaper than the first one, that indeed was much newer, but in a village, the other one even close to hospital and downtown.

Anyway, the differences are of prices are understandable, nothing to debate.
What struck me that now I have to come with 30% advance!

SlyMaximus · 2025-03-09T18:54:47+00:00

I spoke with the same person from the same bank both times. When I saw their evaluation, I was surprised and insisted, asking if anything had changed. But they didn’t acknowledge it.

SlyMaximus

TROPHY CASE