A major finance company advertises that its lending rate is 8.4% APR and their accompanying table shows that for a loan of £10,000 over 120 months you would pay £122.05 per month,

If you calculate the true interest rate for these payments, you will find it is 8.447%. Of course in law, the company cannot be accused of telling lies, because to the first decimal place, the interest rate they are quoting is correct.
I note that some people misunderstood my point which is this: Since the true l interest charged is 8.447%, they should not be allowed to call it 8.4%

I had the bank send me the original contract.. here are the basics:

-In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay US $ 83,250.00
-Interest will be 7.875%
-My monthly payment will be in the amount of $603.62
-I will make my first payment on Dec. 1, 2003.
-Maturity date is Nov. 1, 2033

Okay, so if first payment is on Dec. 1, 2003, and maturity date is Nov. 1, 2033- that means this is a 30 year loan.

But $603.62 for thirty years plus a 7.825% interest = well over $200,000!

Is it legal to charge more interest than the price of the property itself?!

I am having my father look for his original copy of the contract– but I’m wondering if someone pulled a fast one on him.
I guess I sound ridiculous asking this, since everyone that is answering says it is completely normal. I have never purchased a home and did not realize that the bank can charge $120,000+ worth of interest on a $83,000 loan. That’s crazy!

Well now I know! I hope I never sign a contract under terms like that.

I have two main concerns with this. By never having posession of the money, the taxpayer is less aware of the amount than if they had to write a check every pay period.

Secondly, before withholding, the taxpayer could set aside and invest the money and then pay at the end of the year. The longer the taxpayer has the money, the more they could make. But withholding is in essence an instant interest free loan to the govt.

The govt knows that the taxpayer is being exploited because it doesn’t allow the individual to opt out of withholding if they wanted to.
A few of comments: First, why on earth would Congress change the law that detracts from the money they take from their constituents? That’s like asking them to reduce their salaries. It’s never going to happen.

Also, there is a big difference between seeing what was taken on your pay stub and writing a check each pay period. Since you never have the money in possession, you don’t miss it as much.

In addition, why does the IRS get interest on underpayments but the tax payer (whose money it really is) can’t? Congress obviously sees the value in the interest that could be made over the year. The deck is stacked against the citizen from the get go with no chance for recourse. Okay, a lot of people had trouble paying the full amount in April. Let them pay withholding, but also let those who don’t want withholding to opt out. It’s unfair to punish the responsible citizens who can manage their money because of the actions of the dumber ones.

The loan agreement with his parents said “If the undersigned fails to make a required payment by the 15th day of any month, the note will be considered in default. The undersigned agrees to pay all reasonable legal fees and costs of collection to the extent permitted by law if default occurs. This note shall be enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.”

I have several questions:
1) Based on the above agreement I signed (very informal personal agreement), do I still have a right to the part of the company that I did pay for ($5,500/$20,000) or 27.5%?

2) I bought the original domain name on my credit card. I gave him access to the domain name. Now he somehow locked me out of Go Daddy. Do I have a right to the domain name and do I still own the domain?

I am 23 and my credit scores are: 582 Trans Union, 552 Experian, and 545 Equifax.

I have a number of medical bills that went to collection while I was in colllege. I have been paying those medical bills back a little at a time (I have a payment plan with the collection agency). And have two 30 days late (almost a year ago) on my car loan, and a 60 days late on a student loan.
I recently applied for a new secured credit card (which I hope to receive any day) and have been listed as an authorized user on my cousin’s credit card. My cousin has had her credit card for 2 yeas and has never been late.

I am currently working with a law firm that has actually gotten 6 items deleted from the three reports. So, my scores are a little better than they were.

I just feel that it is not right to be punished for getting sick (I had cancer) and not having insurance.
My current scores are 559 TransUnion, 618 Experian, and 557 Equifax.

The reason the Experian score is so much higher is that a new revolving account (my cousin’s credit card) has reflected on that report. I am expecting the credit card to reflect on the other reports soon.

If the other scores jump anything like the Experian score, I expect the others to be around 610.

“Except in . . . GA, HI, MO, and VA (I live in FL) . . .the Servicer (or BOA) will suspend any scheduled foreclosure sale, provided I continue to meet the obligations under this plan, but any pending foreclosure action will not be dismissed and may be immediately resumed from the point at which it was suspended if this plan terminates, and no new notice of default . . . will be necessary to continue the foreclosure action . . . ”

We are currently in the foreclosure process. BOA offered a loan modification trial period. The above paragraph is from the loan modification document. We had to return requested documents by a certain date. Done. We have to make 3 payments on time. They rec’d the payment before the paperwork. First payment done.

A week after paying/signing, I start getting additional copies of court filings from the legal group representing BOA. One is asking for summary judgment. I call the group and explain the papers that were signed and ask them to call BOA. I call BOA the same day and tell them that the foreclosure hasn’t been suspended. They said they would call the law group. Four days later I receive another legal filing. I call BOA again. They said they didn’t know why the foreclosure was still going on because they had told the law group 25 days before, to suspend the proceeding because of the modification. I call the law group again. They said that the agreement that was signed between my husband, I and BOA would not stop the foreclosure proceedings. They said BOA (who is the loan servicer) had no authority to suspend foreclosure. Only Freddie Mac did. So I called Freddie Mac. They say they have no problems proceeding with the foreclosure, as long as the house wasn’t sold.

I have a major problem with this. First of all the Freddie Mac insignia is on the contract. If Freddie Mac’s copyrighted picture is being used without their permission then BOA needs to be sued for copyright infringement.

The above paragraph says that if I don’t fulfill the contract the foreclosure would be “resumed”. I don’t know what dictionary Freddie Mac/the law group is using, but how can something be “resumed” if it was never stopped int the first place??? The paragraph doesn’t say that the proceeding would continue up to the sale of the house. It didn’t specify that the scheduling of the foreclosure sale was the point that the foreclosure would be paused or resumed from. It was ambiguous on where the point is, leaving me to believe that since it isn’t specified, it should be suspended now. It does say that the foreclosure wouldn’t be dismissed. I do understand the difference between a dismissal and a suspension.

At the beginning of the first paragraph it also states that the authority to suspend the foreclosure rests with the “Servicer.” It didn’t say Freddie Mac.

What is the truth?? Is this fraud???

This is a replay of what happened before. I was told that I had a forbearance. I rec’d an acceleration of the note DURING the forbearance. BOA said that during the forbearance they wouldn’t pursue any collection action. They told me it was just a formality. Well if an acceleration of the note isn’t part of the collection process, then I don’t know what is.