One might guess from your summary above that the date
> in the last line ("3/15/2001") [...] typographical error
That it is. Sorry, since it might have added to the confusion. But thanks for your comments/questions.
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.
I did so only because that seems to be what Stuart Bronstein said. He wrote: "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." However ....
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
That does make more sense to me in the context (albeit perhaps not the correct usage of the term "cure default", in deference to Stuart). I will explain why it "makes more sense" below.
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
$70,600 is the balance of principal as of 8/15/2001. The unpaid amounts -- interest and late fees -- are for the period from 8/15/2001 to 3/15/2002. So if we assume, as you do, that $13,358 is only the amount of principal that should have been paid during those 7 months, then the principal balance of the loan on 3/15/2002 would have been $57,242 (70600 - 13358) if the loan payments had been on time. Reality check.... At a monthly interest rate of 1.25%, the payment required to reduce the loan from $70,600 to $57,242 over 7 months is about $2720 (actually $2720.41). That is the sort of number my father might have used. (And the off-by-3 error is the sort of thing that results from the rounding error that my uncle's loosy-goosy arithmetic.) What I still do not understand is why the principal balance of the loan jumps from $70,600 for 8/15/2001 through
2/15/2002 to $92,196 as of 3/15/2002 -- that according to the spreadsheet that my uncle maintained. I see that $92,196 is $70,600 plus unpaid interest and late fees and processing fee and the amount labeled "cure default". I can understand adding the unpaid interest and late fees and processing fee. But the amount labeled "cure default" is included in the $70,600, if you are correct (and I suspect you are) that it is simply the amount of principal that should have been paid during those 7 months. I am coming to the conclusion that this might simply be an accounting error of my uncle's. The balance of the loan on
3/15/2002 should be $78,838 (70600 plus unpaid interest and late fees and processing fee). $13,358 should be labeled "unpaid principal through 3/15/2002". And the "cure default" -- that is, the amount required to reinstate the loan -- should be $21,596 (13358 plus unpaid interest and late fees and processing fee). Thus, 70600 - 21596 is $57,242, the presumptive principal balance as of 3/15/2002 if the loan payments had been on time.
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
I could tell you, but then I would have to shoot you :-). Seriously, I don't think the reasons for my inquiring about such ancient history should be needed in order to answer my questions. Chalk it up to "for my edification", and leave it at that. The real answer is far too complex, a distraction and irrelevant, I believe. If that makes you less likely to participate constructively in this discussion -- as you have so far -- well, I will miss your valuable insights.
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
8/15/2001 compared with interest having been owed for some period before 8/15/2001 and (as in a related context you suggest may have been casually or even carelessly) just aggregated into the interest line of the schedule.
--------------------------------------- * $ 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.
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.