7 ms·
Your employer analogy doesn't hold up because you have not yet tendered the services to your employer for which they would be indebted to you in the future. A
by jtc331 6y ago
Your employer analogy doesn't hold up because you have not yet tendered the services to your employer for which they would be indebted to you in the future.
A better a analogy would be your mortgage, which is in fact a debt you owe in full, a payment schedule notwithstanding.
- devcpp 6y agoBrigade did not provide their service either. A lender provides the service of lending money over a certain amount of time. This money is like a contractor paid by the hour, working at the borrower's service. Brigade should not be entitled to having that money back until that time has either elapsed or the borrower decides to alter the payments. Another comparison would be me giving my wallet to a friend to buy something, then the wallet falls from his pocket into my landlord's hands, who declares this must be my next payment for rent. This does not sound fair.
- arthurcolle 6y agothis second example seems like a better analogy for the situation
- IncRnd 6y ago> Brigade did not provide their service either. A lender provides the service of lending money over a certain amount of time. This money is like a contractor paid by the hour, working at the borrower's service. Brigade should not be entitled to having that money back until that time has either elapsed or the borrower decides to alter the payments. That's not true. For comparison, many times a mortgage lender can call the loan at any time. The service of Brigade loaning the money had already happened. > Another comparison would be me giving my wallet to a friend to buy something, then the wallet falls from his pocket into my landlord's hands, who declares this must be my next payment for rent. This does not sound fair. A better comparison would be if your bank mailed a check every month to your mortgage lender, then suddenly sent a check for the exact remaining balance plus interest accrued.
- jmvoodoo 6y agoExcept the loan was paid including all interest for the lifetime of the loan. If you prepaid your mortgage that way, even on purpose, your bank would owe you a good portion of your money back.
- dahfizz 6y agoI don't understand. You're saying if I decided to pay off my mortgage all at once, my bank would "owe" me my payoff check?
- ganoushoreilly 6y agoI think op is implying the difference in non-accrued interest. IE your payment at that point would be all principle, thus negating the loan and incurring over payment.
- sombremesa 6y agoIf you calculate all the money you will put into your mortgage loan over time, add it all up, and write a check for that amount, it will be more that your principal balance because of interest.
- paulmd 6y agoInterest accrues on a monthly basis, so if you pay it off now you won't accrue the interest on an ongoing basis. In other words - over the life of the loan/mortgage you will pay $X in principal and $Y in interest. If you suddenly pay the whole thing back, then $Y becomes much smaller. So if you paid $X + $Y in a lump sum then you would receive some money back, is what they are saying. Because you have overpaid on the interest, because that interest never accrued. (not sure whether in this case Citibank paid the full sum of the principal or expected interest or not, but yes, if you did that on your mortgage then you would be entitled to receive some money back)
- freeone3000 6y agoThat is incorrect - I would actually owe my bank an additional prepayment penalty, according to my mortgage structure.