Re: What's a "cure default" amount for a private loan?

It depends on the specific contract, but in general that's

> correct. The amount necessary to cure the default is the > amount necessary to reinstate the loan to its former status. > That means paying anything in arrears, plus interest, > penalties, costs of sending the notice and possibly some > attorney's fees.

Thanks for the responses so far. They make good sense.

Unfortunately, I have learned that I inadvertently posted incomplete information. (GIGO.) I wonder if the following "complete" information (to the extent possible) changes the answer. First, I hasten to point out that although these were my father-the-lawyer/CPA's records, the notations and numbers are my uncle's, who is neither a lawyer nor a CPA. Read: the terminology is suspect, as is the usage of the numbers. Klunk! The more complete and more accurate descriptions are: $ 70,600 balance 8/15/2001 630 unpaid late fees through 3/15/2002 6,808 unpaid interest through 3/15/2002 13,358 Foobar Company cure default 800 processing fee

-------- $ 92,196 balance 3/15/2001 (total)

Does it make sense that those numbers are added to compute the new balance? If the cure default should be the amount needed to reinstate the loan to its current status, does that mean that $13,358 should be the sum of the unpaid principal from 8/15/2001 through 3/15/2002 plus unpaid late fees, unpaid interest and perhaps the processing fee? In other words, $13,358 minus $630 minus $6808 and perhaps minus $800 should equal the principal that should have been paid down with the 7 missed payments. Right? If so, then the monthly payment would have been $1587 or $1697, and the "cured" ending balance would be $65,480 or $64,680 respectively, depending on whether $13,358 does or does not include the $800 in processing fees respectively. Unfortunately, I do not have a complete record of the terms of the loan. I only know that the monthly interest rate was

1.25%. So I cannot confirm the amount of unpaid principal. But both derived payment amounts are uncommonly "odd" for my father's loans. Payments were always a multiple of 5 (i.e. ending in 0 or 5). So I am suspicious of my interpretation of all this.

Can anyone offer any educated guesses that might get me closer to the truth, despite the lack of information?

> > > > > > > > >
Reply to
nomail1983
Loading thread data ...

" snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com" elaborated his earlier query:

Bearing in mind the apparent date discrepancies as you state them above, you do not fully explain and instead are confusing about what you think you mean in this question by "new balance" and why. One might guess from your summary above that the date in the last line ("3/15/2001"), which is not "new[er]" than the others, is a typographical error and, speculating in light of the other dates you state above, that you (or, if you do quote accurately, the compilation you purport to reproduce) meant that "3/15/2002" is the actually operative date for the last line. However, one cannot reliably be sure solely on the basis of the cursory schedule you provide because there may be ways reasonably to interpret that entire schedule as if the balance stated in the last line were a correct one as of 8/15/2001 (notwithstanding and yet in ways that might be consistent with the first line) or 3/15/2002. Assuming, however, that 3/15/2002 is the correct/operative date:

Not necessarily nor (inferring from the figures above) even probably. One other reasonable interpretation of the above summary is that $13,358 is the amount (solely) of principal due but not paid during the here assumed seven month period (and, indeed, it would be difficult to rationalize the full balance as of 3/15/2002 as the $92,196 stated if one did not make such an assumption). And even if one were to make some version of such an assumption, it still would be difficult reliably to determine what the underlying loan agreement required to be the portion of monthly principal required to be repaid because (among other potential reasons) one cannot tell solely from the above schedule whether the borrower had made partial payments of contractually due (repayment of) principal during some portion(s) of that period.

You have yet to explain why this "In other words, etc." is even arguably needed to try to understand the above schedule let alone why you appear to believe that the lender or whoever else made the above summary did not decide (perhaps quite simply), in substance, separately to list "$13,358" as the portion of principal needed to cure the default(s) in question regardless whether (for whatever reason or maybe for no reason) s/he did not add the word "principal" after that number and on which, in addition, the other sums stated above shall be computed/added.

Many (and so, as you apparently imply, not necessarily all) loans which provide for some variant of late charges or processing fees do not include these sorts of charges within the otherwise applicable definitions of what sums the borrower is required to pay in the agreed monthly installments (or whatever is the other agreed installment measuring period). In any event, and as noted (and as your "If" in you "If so, etc." seems also in effect to acknowledge), your here stated conclusion would beg the question whether you are correct to deduct the $630 and $6808 and ("perhaps") $800 sums from $13,358 as you do. You also appear to be assuming (even if you have not articulated this clearly to yourself) that what the above schedule (which you now emphasize was not prepared by an accountant or like professional) states was the balance as of 8/15/2001 includes then due but not paid interest in addition to principal and, correlatively, you do not make clear whether the $6,808 sum for "unpaid interest through

3/15/2002" includes interest that may have been payable but not paid for some part of the loan period before 8/15/2001 (if the "$70,600 balance" refers only to principal although the schedule does not say one way or t'other) and whether or not also in part for the period during 8/14/2001 to 3/15/2002) that schedule not having said (explicitly) that the therein stated $6,808 sum represents interest only for the seven month period from 8/15/2001 through 3/15/2002.

A question raised by your first posted query which you have not answered in/by your present follow-up is WHY -- for what purpose -- you speculate and ask about these matters (not to dwell on whether, if your queries are triggered by some sort of not yet by you described pending or what you believe may become a real-life dispute, whether it is cost-vs.-benefit warranted to be concerned about any of this). This therefore is ;only one of the reasons why a reader of your postings might be puzzled why (perhaps especially but not necessarily only if you pose your query from the viewpoint of a creditor) you appear to acquiesce in the notion of a default having been cured bearing in mind that you still do not report whether the operative loan agreement provided for acceleration of the full balance in case of default (whatever that sum may have been at any particular time) and, if so, why the lender seems to have acquiesced in or otherwise agreed to a cure

Whether you pose the queries you do as in your opinion law- or tax- related, what you refer to as the "the truth" continues to depend on your being more factually informative than you have been so far about that "Why?" question, i.e., about the actual/specific (full) context of whatever is the underlying scenario (dispute? would-be lawsuit?) and for what purposes you seek more information than the schedule above (which, of course, does say that$92,196 was the balance owed as of whichever applies of 3/15/2001 or

3/15/2002). \\\ From: Dick Adams Organization: The Oracle at Ellicott City Distribution: world Precedence: first-class Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing Subject: Re: Reducing Juices for Wine Distribution: world References:

MLynchLtd

Mike, thank you for the clarification. My experiences with adding sugar nave not been positive. Think 3-gals of juice, 11 lbs of clover honey plus water. use a yeast strain with an alcohol toxicity level of 14%. You'll also need pectic enzyme and yeast nutrient.

Dick

Reply to
nospam

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.