|
Posted by nomail1983@hotmail.com on September 25, 2007, 11:41 pm
Please log in for more thread options
nos...@isp.com wrote:
> 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.
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Stuart Bronstein on September 27, 2007, 2:38 am
Please log in for more thread options
> 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.
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.
> Seriously, I don't think the reasons for my inquiring about
> such ancient history should be needed in order to answer my
> questions.
Normally, no. But your reasons might give information that
could help figure out what this is all about, and how to
solve it.
Stu
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by nospam on September 28, 2007, 4:00 pm
Please log in for more thread options > Stuart Bronstein . . . 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."
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.
> $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.
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)
> [A]ssum[ing] . . . $13,358 is only the amount of
> principal that should have been paid during those
> 7 months, . . .
. . . 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 . . .
> . . . 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 . . . .
. . . . 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.
> .... 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).
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).
> 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 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).
> I see that $92,196 is $70,600 plus unpaid interest
> and late fees and processing fee and the amount labeled
> "cure default".
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).
> 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.
It could be that -- and, indeed, "simply" so -- if that is
what the relevant parties agreed at the time.
> 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
> [for what other purposes I ask what I do here] is
> far too complex, a distraction and irrelevant, I
> believe.
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.
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | What's a "cure default" amount for a private loan? | September 20, 2007, 1:00 am |
| Re: What's a "cure default" amount for a private loan? | September 23, 2007, 7:45 pm |
| Re: What's a "cure default" amount for a private loan? | September 28, 2007, 4:00 pm |
| 401k Loan Default | June 18, 2006, 11:48 pm |
| income from private company loan | March 17, 2007, 5:54 pm |
| Interest on a loan from a private individual to fund education | December 22, 2006, 1:34 am |
| New installment agreement after default? | June 20, 2006, 2:12 am |
| Sold Car / Paid Off Loan - Is it really an asset when car loan present? | February 2, 2007, 2:10 am |
| Taxes on private loans | January 30, 2007, 1:26 pm |
| Private school tuition | May 31, 2007, 12:58 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap