Advertisement

April 24, 2014

The 365/360 Method of Calculating Interest: Lenders and Borrowers Square Off

Recently, financial institutions in Illinois have encountered a new defense to mortgage foreclosure suits and a new wave of class action lawsuits, all arising out of the 365/360 method of calculating interest. With the exception of a few cases in downstate Illinois, courts facing these new claims and defenses have ruled in favor of the financial institutions. That being said, it is likely that the showdown will continue in the appellate courts and, ultimately, the Illinois legislature.

Understanding the Issue

Promissory notes frequently contain language providing that interest will be computed by multiplying the stated interest rate by 365 and dividing that number by 360. As a result, the interest rate that actually accrues in a calendar year is slightly higher than what is stated in the promissory note. The reasoning behind this method goes to the bank's attempts to standardize interest rates on a 30-day month, while taking into account the 365-day calendar year. The 365/360 method has been recognized for quite some time by the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, as well as courts throughout Illinois, as an appropriate means of calculating interest.

In raising defenses to mortgage foreclosure cases and in plaintiff's class action cases, however, borrowers are claiming that the 365/360 method violates the Illinois Interest Act because certain promissory notes refer to interest being calculated either "per annum" or "annually." In some cases, these parties are maintaining that the method also violates the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and provides evidence of fraud. Furthermore, borrowers are contending that the Illinois Interest Act requires lenders to use a calendar year to compute interest whenever the word "year" (or a comparable term) is used in a loan document. With respect to damages, some borrowers have also argued that the Illinois Interest Act allows them to recover twice the amount of the unauthorized interest that was charged.

Mixed Results in the Courts

So far, this legal strategy has met with mixed results. While some courts in downstate Illinois have sided with the borrowers, most judges in Cook County have rejected the argument and ruled in favor of the lenders, reasoning that the Illinois Interest Act does not apply when a promissory note clearly states a specific basis for interest computation (e.g., the 365/360 method).

Given the increase in the number of cases addressing these new claims and defenses, the Illinois legislature is poised to pass legislation that validates the legality of the 365/360 method. While the final resolution remains uncertain, it is clear that these latest court battles are the byproduct of an economic environment that has left lenders scrambling to protect and collect on their loans, while borrowers attempt to preserve their options until the economy recovers.

© 2014 Much Shelist, P.C.

About the Author

Principal

Edward D. Shapiro focuses his practice on the efficient prevention, management and resolution of disputes for commercial entities, organizations and individuals. Serving as Chair of the firm's Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice group, Ed advises and represents clients in state and federal court, before administrative agencies, and in mediation and arbitration in a full range of business matters.

312-521-2421

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.