under the terms of the note of one percent, and interest to that date. Defendant refused to accept the tender without payment of interest, that was due under the terms of the note, to the next regular quarterly installment due date of February 1, 1969. Thereupon the additional interest until February 1, amounting to $39,679.17, was also paid by plaintiff under protest pending this judicial clarification of the respective rights of the parties.
Plaintiff contends that it is unconscionable and contrary to the terms of the note to exact interest for a period after all of the principal has been paid, particularly when a prepayment charge of one percent has been assessed. Plaintiff also urges that defendant was not required to accept the earlier payment of principal but, having done so, must be considered to have waived any right of interest beyond December 5, 1968. It is clear that plaintiff had a strong business reason for making payments in December rather than on February 1 and defendant in no way encouraged or induced the earlier payment. As far as the matter of interest is concerned, defendant insisted from the very beginning of negotiations leading to the final payment that interest until February 1 was required under the terms of the note. The prepayment charge is strictly in accord with the terms of the note.
No case on point has been cited by either party nor is there evidence of any practice by the parties or of the trade generally which would aid in construing a note having terms such as the one before the Court. Recognizing that the note must be construed to place the burden of any ambiguity upon defendant, North American Graphite Corp. v. Allan, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 184 F.2d 387 (1950), the Court nonetheless is unable to find any ambiguity in the note itself. From the face of the note, the Court is satisfied that payments of principal were contemplated only on installment due dates with interest running to such dates and were subject to prepayment charges. Defendant never agreed to alter this contractual provision; when it accepted an earlier payment of principal it demanded interest to the installment due date. Cf. Atlantic Life Ins. Co. of Richmond v. Wolf, 54 A.2d 641 (D.C.Mun.App.1947). The note must therefore be enforced in accordance with its terms. Interest paid under protest was due and owing and summary judgment will be granted for defendant.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.