"nomail1983[at]hotmail.com" <nomail1983[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

Unless you know the answer to the question, you really can't
say that with any assurance.

- quote -

Unfortunately not without more information.

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"nomail1983[at]hotmail.com" <nomail1983[at]hotmail.com> further said/asked:
- quote -

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.

- quote -

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)

- quote -

. . . 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 . . .

- quote -

. . . . 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.

- quote -

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).

- quote -

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).

- quote -

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).

- quote -

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

- quote -

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Stuart Bronstein <spamt...[at]lexregia.com> wrote:

- quote -

Ohfersure, in general. I wasn't saying: "I don't know why
you are asking for my reasons". I was saying: "I
understand enough about the problem to know that knowledge
of the circumstances will not help to answer my questions".

Quite honestly, based on these very informative responses, I
am coming to the conclusion that my uncle simply screwed up.
Either he is misusing the terminology (I suspect, as others
have said, that the figure labeled "cure default" is really
just the unpaid principal), or his arithmetic makes no
sense. Wouldn't be the first time; for example, in the same
set of records, he variously shows a balance of $93,815 and
$49,420 for this loan as of 10/31/2001, with no indication
of any payments. Indeed, the figures that I provide assume
(or assert) that there were no payments.

I cannot vet and correct the arithmetic because I do not
know of the original terms of the loan. The records are 350
miles away, and the recordkeeper wouldn't know up from down.

I realize I am missing some (large?) pieces of the jigsaw
puzzle. But I was hoping that someone could fill them in.
Sigh, probably not. But I appreciate the effort. Thanks to
all.

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"nomail1983[at]hotmail.com" <nomail1983[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

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.

- quote -

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

nos...[at]isp.com wrote:

- quote -

That it is. Sorry, since it might have added to the
confusion. But thanks for your comments/questions.

- quote -

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 ....

- quote -

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.

- quote -

$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.

- quote -

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"nomail1983[at]hotmail.com" elaborated his earlier query:

- quote -

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:

- quote -

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.

- quote -

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.

- quote -

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.

- quote -

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

- quote -

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$92,196 was the
balance owed as of whichever applies of 3/15/2001 or
3/15/2002). \\\ From: Dick Adams <rdadams[at]panix.comOrganization: The Oracle at Ellicott City
Distribution: world
Precedence: first-class
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: Re: Reducing Juices for Wine
Distribution: world
References: <gfydnQ5ed4YLM2vbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d[at]comcast.com> <fd6tql$ks8$1[at]panix1.panix.com> <1190641686.803502.102840[at]50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com
MLynchLtd <mlynchltd[at]yahoo.com> Dick Adams <rdad...[at]panix.com> wrote:
- quote -

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

Stuart Bronstein <spamt...[at]lexregia.com> wrote:

- quote -

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?

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote:

- quote -

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.

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"nomail1...[at]hotmail.com" <nomail1...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

I googled "cure default." From the hits, I deduce the "cure
default" amount is the amount needed to make an installment
loan current -- that is the amount of payments in arrears on
the loan. I didn't read far enough to figure out whether
other fees (such as processing) are included in the "cure
default" amount but I would consider it misleading if they
were not.

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

My father (now deceased) made private loans to individuals.
For one loan, which he sold to a third-party, his records
show the following amounts:

$71,000 loan balance
600 unpaid late fees
7,000 unpaid interest
13,000 cure default
800 processing fee

What is the amount identified as "cure default"?

I assume that is the amount that he got from the third-party
for the loan.

Furthermore, I assume that the "processing fee" was charged
by the third-party.

Is it likely that the "cure default" amount is net the
processing fee; or would the "cure default" normally amount
include the processing fee?

Since "processing fee" is listed separately, I assume the
"cure default" amount is net that fee.

But I don't know what is customary for recordkeeping.

Note: My father was an attorney and a CPA. He probably
would have followed generally accepted accounting practices
in his recordkeeping.

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >