![prosper loans and hardship arrangements 2017 prosper loans and hardship arrangements 2017](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/m65QxXwDDTA/maxresdefault.jpg)
Once again not at all, the 30 and 120 day clauses are critical here. Quote -Indeed, under your interpretation, Prosper could even choose to tell borrowers that they are free to make their final payments in 20 years, rather than three, so long as interest and late fees still accrue - after all, according to you, since the payments would still technically be "due" sooner (with no penalty other than interest and late fees for not paying when due), that wouldn't count as a "modification" or a "deferral" or a "change in final maturity date" either. If there is “no” Payment they are required by the LRA to eventually turn it over (they may not, so then we have a case, but not before). Not strained at all, Prosper is constrained by the no payment in a 30 day period.
![prosper loans and hardship arrangements 2017 prosper loans and hardship arrangements 2017](https://www.boalewood.ca/wp-content/uploads/student-loan-1.jpg)
Quote -Under your strained interpretation, Prosper could choose, for any reason, to allow any or all borrowers to convert their loans to 3-year balloon loans by telling the borrowers they need not make ANY payments until the final 3-year due date so long as they pay the modest late fees with the final balloon payment. Can’t wait to hear the lawsuit you might bring there, “But your honor Prosper was collecting money so why did they turn it over to collections so I lost 17% when I didn’t have to?!”. The best that could be said here is Prosper decided the amount that the borrower paid was enough to induce Prosper, in our behalf, to not report to credit agencies and not turn the borrower over to collections (at a possible detriment to our interests). But even if there were, Prosper did not give permission to make partial payments, they encouraged the borrower to pay anything they could. I doubt very seriously if there is actually any written agreement to anything, probably all verbal. )īut none-the-less Prosper did not modify, there is no change to the Borrowers Agreement, nor the LRA. Perhaps I am too clever by half jury is still out on that one, maybe it is only a quarter. And this conclusion is bolstered by Prospers continued reporting of the loans as "current." In my humble opinion as a California lawyer, you are being too clever by half. By giving the borrower permission to make these late partial payments, Prosper has deferred the payments, in violation of the LRA. To me, Prosper clearly deferred the payment of principal and interest, by making a subsequent arrangement with the borrower (i.e., a "modification") that the borrower could permissibly make partial payments later than the original due dates. Quote from: wftrust on November 12, 2009, 07:34:22 pm -Did they defer or forgive the payment of principal or interest? No they did not Collections – Hardship Arrangement are Benefiting Lenders