Termination of life insurance - bank refuses consent

But you have to extract all the information from him little by little.

I hope you will at least play with open cards during the conversations and mention the lack of liquidity due to unemployment. Then even the stubbornness of some bankers can change if the honest reason for the approach is stated.

Egg of Columbus found. Next topic.

First of all:
Really sincere thanks for the lively participation and answers.
That is the purpose of a forum – the questioner (the clueless) asks – the members (the knowledgeable) answer. If you already knew it yourself, you wouldn’t ask.
I myself am active in some forums on topics I know well. I handle it the same way – answer patiently, and if I feel I lack detailed information for a correct assessment, I even ask specifically. It works.

Now to my topic:
How can one come to the assessment from the previous answers that the topic is resolved? (Found the egg of Columbus)?
Why am I being subtly accused of not playing with open cards?
I’ve already asked: What would I gain from that?

I had written about my wife’s unemployment. I am not unemployed. My income is good and sufficiently covers all daily living expenses. I had written that it would get tight. I just don’t want to reduce my standard of living if, on the other hand, with the bank’s assurance, everything would be fine.
Of course, just like here, I also played with open cards at the bank and explained exactly that to the bank employee. The changed life situation (wife’s unemployment) didn’t interest him. My wife hadn’t signed the loan agreement. So far, I have been servicing all liabilities on time. If that were no longer the case, then a dunning procedure would be initiated and then they would consider using the existing securities. Yes, I was also surprised.

From the previous answers I have read:
Yes, the bank should actually.
Why wouldn’t the bank?
Actually, there is nothing speaking against it?
No, it doesn’t have to, but why should it refuse?

What I had hoped to find was a statement along the lines of:

No, the bank doesn’t have to and is within its rights. Forget it. No chance.

Or:

The bank may not block 188%. There is this or that legal text or court ruling that this constitutes disproportionate disadvantage for the borrower.

Or:

Sorry. We see it similarly to you. There’s nothing speaking against it, but we don’t know whether the bank has to agree or not.

Everything would be okay, although I like variant 2 best.

But right now I’m almost exactly where I was at the beginning. Insecure and confused because I still don’t know if my moral consideration and my gut feeling have any legal basis.
Can the bank really force me (if it came to that) into a dunning procedure even though there is actually enough money?

Thanks again for your patience with me.

Since I am replying on the go, the response (as well as my last comment) may be too brief and not cover all aspects in full.

Analytically considered, it is simple. Pacta sunt servanda, contracts must be honored.

Are there exceptions/laws that allow one contracting party to unilaterally exit the contract contrary to the contractual agreement?
Yes, there are, but they do not apply given the information provided.

Are there important pieces of information that might cause a bank to react contrary to usual behavior?
Yes, there were, but they were only disclosed little by little.

Bankers (still mostly merchants) do not like it when information is withheld, neither positive nor negative. Complete information can lead to a different outcome.

At the outset, there was the question of whether it is professionally correct. And the answer is: Yes, it is professionally correct. So why should something be done differently?

At the moment, I only see someone trying to enforce their supposed own gain (it would first have to be checked whether this is really the case) at the expense of the bank (administrative costs, additional effort) without having a basis for this.

And the decisive answer: No, the bank is not obliged and is in the right.

The collateral is indeed higher than necessary, but there are two important components that bind you.

1) You probably have interest conditions based on a real estate security. Perhaps even a Pfandbriefbank, which even refinances itself this way. So the collateral house is essential solely for the conditions.

2) Repayment agreement through the accumulation of a life insurance policy. So this cannot be dissolved either.

The only thing, besides stopping the premium payment, that could still succeed would be the cancellation of a life insurance policy without repaying the loan, as long as sufficient guaranteed capital remains in the second life insurance policy.

But even here applies: The bank is not obliged, pacta sunt servanda. Etc...

I don't think you will get a clear answer to your question, as this is not an everyday case.

1. Legal advice is not possible here and you will not receive a legally binding answer here either.
2. Even though there are occasionally bankers around here, the majority are also just builders who can share their own experiences.
3. You signed the contract and are (just like the bank) obliged to comply with it. This includes not only the loan but also the securities.
4. A bank is willing to deviate from the contract under certain circumstances if you put all the cards on the table. Especially in your case (if correctly described), it wouldn't even cost the bank anything to release LV 2. The most important thing for them is that they receive both their interest and their repayment.

PS: Toxic was faster

Great. Thanks again for your responses.

Legal advice is only available from a lawyer or consumer advice center (also there through a lawyer), so I did not expect it from you, only tips and hints.

The first sentence of my initial post:
" I am interested in the professional assessment of the following situation: "

Sometimes there are also similar experiences.

Thanks to you all.