Court Opinion

ID: 9574251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:03:42.316887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:17.184302
License: Public Domain

O’BRIEN, District Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the opinion of the Court except for that section titled “INTEREST.” The subject note bore no interest unless it was not timely paid, in which event the lenders could accelerate payment, and interest would accrue. The note was in default, but, instead of immediately declaring the default, the lenders gave an additional thirty-one days to cure. Although politely phrased, the intent of the November 1, 1985 letter was entirely clear—if the default was not cured within the new grace period, the note would be accelerated. The default was not timely cured; consequently, the note was due and started to accrue interest. By conditioning acceleration upon a second notice, which could do no more than reiterate what was previously said, the majority opinion distorts the plain meaning of language and frustrates the agreement of the parties.