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

Apparently they are giving different numbers that include some of the same costs. So if you add everything together it gets to be too much. The word "cure" implies that you can reinstate the loan to its prior status. That would include paying back principal and interest that should have been paid before. It looks like they just add everything together in case you decide to pay off the entire amount all at once. In fact, sometimes you lose the right to cure (e.g. you don't do it within the required period of time). In that case your only alternative is to pay off the entire balance all at once.

Normally, no. But your reasons might give information that could help figure out what this is all about, and how to solve it. Stu

" snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com" further said/asked:

I presume that he intended to try to be helpful, not to mislead. However (and as I've already told you), at least unless/until confirmed by particular reference to the actual provisions in the underlying note or other loan agreement at issue in this connection, his second sentence above ("That means, . . . etc.") is misleading in effect because he there begs at least these two questions which (though somewhat cryptically) you appear to suggest are relevant to the "edification" you say below you seek: What (if anything) does the operative agreement say shall be the circumstances/conditions by which a default may/shall be cured?

Did whichever applies of father or uncle acquiesce in a cure by the borrower in default even though the note or other loan agreement at issue contained an acceleration provision (which may or may not have been invoked by the lender before such negotiation)?

And yet, too, your persisting in your refusal to report whatever it is that actually concerns you about this scenario -- though that is your right -- prevents all meaningful judgments whether these questions or, indeed, whatever may be the ones you think you're trying to pose, have any practical significance for you.

Maybe, you know facts about the loan in addition to the schedule you posted earlier * which support this conclusion, although you have not clearly so said in your postings in this thread. But that schedule alone does not make clear that what you say immediately above is so because you still do not provide information from which one may infer precisely/definitively whether the "through" in "interest through 3/15/2002" as stated in that schedule is, in fact, calculated (only?) from

--------------------------------------- * $ 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 3/15/2002 (total)

. . . and assuming (as concededly if perhaps not correctly the schedule's preparer appears to have done) that the loan's terms/provisions did not enable (require?) acceleration of the full balance in case of a default (of only one month and, as here, evidently continuing for seven months?) in payment of interest and principal . . .

. . . . depending, too, on how the borrower and lender had agreed to compute and to credit what you earlier said were also required 1.25% interest payments, although you also have not yet said (and I suggest that one cannot tell only from your schedule) whether what you referred to as the "monthly interest rate" was to have been interest on each payment or interest on the full amount of unpaid principal (only) or compounded interest (on past due principal plus interest) as of any particular month.

If you say so (and yet I confess that how you arrived at these figures is not clear to me albeit the explanation may be that I am arithmetically illiterate in this connection).

I don't understand this, either (although, as I've also suggested, there may be reasonably variant explanations that are based or at least arguably derived from your schedule . . . depending on your explaining as you so far refuse to do why you ask what you do).

And, again, it may be that your uncle and father, if your uncle was the borrower, or your uncle on your father's behalf in dealing whoever else was the borrower, if that is what occurred, negotiated then agreed -- if so, perhaps without regard to the earlier otherwise agreed terms/provisions of the loan? -- that the amount labeled "cure default" was the amount the parties shall treat as that required to cure whatever was the default at issue. The problem in this connection (for you) remains that noted earlier -- namely, that you initiated this thread by apparently asking how (to the extent it would be fair summarily to state this in general) "cure default" ordinarily is used then appear to be conflating (generalized) answers to that question with the particular provisions/circumstances the loan to which you refer whereas (as also earlier noted) it may be that the relevant parties used that term ("cure default") as a more or less arbitrary sum they agreed (or, perhaps, that you uncle or your father unilaterally asserted/insisted) shall be the sum needed to cure the default in question. Indeed, and relatedly in this connection, it may also be that the sum they (or was it only one of them acting unilaterally?) stated on the schedule for this purposes was an also mutually agreed (or unilaterally but, depending on the relevant/operative facts, not necessarily incorrectly much less unlawfully arrived at?) sum. You apparently presume that you will attain "edification" by the (concededly not necessarily per se irrationally) exercise in which you here engage and yet, at least as a practical matter, you do not even make clear that that sort of "edification" would be meaningful (in any realistically evaluated terms).

It could be that -- and, indeed, "simply" so -- if that is what the relevant parties agreed at the time.

You are of course entitled to believe whatever you choose and it also might go without saying (though of course I acknowledge) that you do not have any obligation to others to report whatever facts you do not want to report. However (and even though, also admittedly, you do not provide enough information fully to justify my saying this), I'd be willing to bet that you are misleading yourself in the belief you here state (that meaningful understanding is not dependent on evaluating the relevant and also full factual context) even if you adhere to that belief in what you also believe to be good faith.