Quote:
Originally Posted by karl_1052
What about the part where the bank tacked $200,000 onto the loan? What are your comments about that part?
|
I suspect the difference was due to the small number being the amount the bank loaned them and the larger number being the total repayment amount if the borrowers had followed their repayment schedule.
Ultimately what this comes down to is the lender and the borrower signed a contract. The borrower is no longer able to fulfill their requirements under the contract. If the lender is willing to change the terms of the contract to accommodate the borrower that is great, but the lender is completely within their rights to hold the borrower to the original terms. What would be most beneficial to the lender is irrelevant. They can choose to do whatever they want within the law no matter what this shithead judge says. Cases like this are why the appellate courts exist.