Justice MÜLLARKEY
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals’ decision to Dikeou v. Dikeou, 916 P.2d 601 (Colo.App.1995).1 The court of appeals held that late charges of a set dollar amount per day which were provided to a contract for a nonconsumer loan secured by a promissory note were impermissible penalties that are unenforceable under Colorado law. Because we now conclude that the late charges in this case are properly characterized as “default interest” and are reasonable as analyzed under the nonconsumer loan usury statute at section 5-12-103, 2 C.R.S. (1992), we reverse.
I.
On December 30, 1987, respondent, Lucy Dikeou (creditor), and petitioner, John Dikeou (debtor), entered into a noneonsumer loan agreement to which the creditor lent $900,000 to the debtor and the debtor signed a promissory note payable to the creditor in that amount. Pursuant to this promissory note, the debtor agreed to pay interest of $9,750 per month (13% per annum of the principal) with the entire $900,000 principal due and payable to a balloon payment on or before August 30, 1988. In addition, the terms of the promissory note provided for late payment charges to the amount of $700 per day on payments more than one day late and a $50,000 penalty should the debtor fail to pay certain costs of insurance and appraisals respecting real estate that secured the note.
Approximately one year later, on December 23,1988, the parties modified the original promissory note. The terms of the modified note extended the maturity date to December 30, 1989 and permitted the debtor to request a further extension to August 30, 1990. The modified note also provided that the terms and conditions of the original note that were not specifically modified were to remain in full force and effect. Therefore, the monthly interest payment remained $9,750 and the daily late charge of $700 continued.
The debtor subsequently failed to make numerous interest payments and failed to pay the full principal amount by the modified date of maturity, August 30, 1990. Then, in October 1990, the debtor made a payment sufficient to pay all accrued interest and late charges, as well as to reduce the principal balance to $472,764.45. After paying down the principal, the debtor continued making interest payments of $5,121.61 per month (13% per annum of reduced principal) but did not reduce the principal or pay the late charges still accruing because of the debtor’s continuing failure to repay the principal.
On August 15,1991, the creditor demanded payment of both the note in full and the late charges calculated at a rate of $413.33 per day from November 1, 1990. The creditor then filed a complaint to Denver District Court, alleging that the debtor had defaulted on the modified note. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the creditor to an amount of $472,-764.45 for the principal amount due on the modified note plus attorney fees and costs, with interest from the date of judgment at a rate of 8%. The trial court refused to enforce the daily late charge provision based on its conclusion that the late charges bore “no [1288]*1288relationship ... to any possible damage” that the creditor might have suffered due to the debtor’s failure to repay the note according to its terms. The trial court also refused to enforcé the $50,000 penalty.
The creditor appealed the trial court’s decision on enforcement of the late charge provision and the penalty. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and concluded that it was “unnecessary to determine whether the late charges [were] usurious and in violation of § 5-12-103 since they are penalties that are unenforceable under the standards set forth in Perino v. Jarvis, 135 Colo. 393, 312 P.2d 108 (1957).” Dikeou, 916 P.2d at 603.2
II.
The creditor argues that the court of appeals erred in applying Perino because it reversed the appropriate order of analysis. According to the creditor, before concluding that the late charges were impermissible penalties, the court of appeals first should have determined whether the charges were interest. We agree.
In Perino, this court considered whether a real estate broker was entitled to keep a $1000 deposit paid by the prospective buyer in connection with a failed attempt to purchase a beer business in Arizona. Perino, 135 Colo, at 394, 312 P.2d at 108. Although the oral agreement between the parties did not include any provision or understanding for the retention of the $1000 as liquidated damages, this court analyzed the broker’s claim under the essential elements of a contract for the retention of a sum paid as liquidated damages. Id. at 396, 312 P.2d at 108-09. The essential elements were: (1) that the anticipated damages are uncertain in amount or difficult to prove; (2) that the parties intend to liquidate the damages in advance; and (3) that the amount stated is a reasonable one and not greatly disproportionate to the presumable loss or injury. Id. at 396, 312 P.2d at 109. The Perino court concluded that, even assuming that the parties contended there was an agreement to liquidate damages, the necessary elements of such a contract were lacking. Id. at 397, 312 P.2d at 109.
The case before us bears no similarity to Perino. Here, the parties were engaged in a nonconsumer loan for $900,000. The debtor contracted to repay the loan with interest and to pay certain late charges if he failed to make timely payments, which he clearly failed to do. The Perino transaction was not a written nonconsumer loan, but rather an oral buy/sell agreement which failed to specify the disposition of the buyer’s $1000 deposit in the event that the sale was not consummated. Under such circumstances, there could be no contention that the deposit was a form of interest or could be recalculated as a form of interest. There was no principal amount loaned and apparently the broker attempted to justify his retention of the deposit by asserting that the money was a form of liquidated damages.
Here, we agree with the creditor that the question is whether these late charges constitute “interest” as defined by section 5-12-103(2) and, if so, whether the late charges, when combined with the other interest charged in the loan, violate the usury law. See Debtor-Creditor Law ¶ 16.04[A][6][e] (Theodore Eisenberg ed., 1992)(legality of late payment charges turns on whether it constitutes interest charge under state usury law). In enacting the usury statute, the legislature determined that interest rates of up to 45% are reasonable and not usurious. See § 5-12-103(2), 2 C.R.S. (1992). Therefore, if [1289]*1289the late charges in this case are determined to be interest and the total interest charged does not exceed 45%, then the late charges are reasonable as a matter of law and may be enforced.
III.
We now must determine whether the late charges in this case are interest as defined by section 5-12-108(2), which states:
The term “interest” as used in this section means the sum of all charges payable directly or indirectly by a debtor and imposed directly or indirectly by a lender as an incident to or as a condition of the extension of credit to the debtor, whether paid or payable by the debtor, the lender, or any other person on behalf of the debtor to the lender or to a third party.
§ 5-12-103(2), 2 C.R.S. (1992). Section 5-12-103 also provides that interest “charges” are not usurious as long as the sum of all charges does not exceed 45%. § 5-12-103(1), 2 C.R.S. (1992). The statute does not specifically refer to late or default charges in the definition. Although we have not previously considered whether late charges are interest under this section of the usury statute, we have dealt with a similar issue in the context of federal banking law.
In Copeland, v. MBNA America Bank, NA., 907 P.2d 87 (Colo.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 2496, 135 L.Ed.2d 189 (1996), we considered whether late charges were interest under section 85 of the National Banking Act (NBA). Unlike the Colorado usury statute at section 5-12-103, section 85 of the NBA does not provide a definition for “interest.” Id. at 90. In Copeland, a Colorado credit card customer initiated a class action alleging, in part, that late charges were not interest under the NBA because late charges are penalties. Id. We disagreed and concluded, based on prior eases interpreting the NBA, that late payment fees were included in the definition of “interest” at the time the NBA was enacted. Id. at 92. Therefore, we necessarily rejected the customer’s contention that interest should be defined narrowly to include only periodic percentage interest rates. See id. at 90.
Likewise, in Stoorman v. Greenwood Trust Co., 908 P.2d 133 (Colo.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 2498, 135 L.Ed.2d 190 (1996), we considered whether late charges were interest under section 521 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDA). Congress incorporated the language of section 85 of the NBA into section 521 of the DIDA. Id. at 135. Concluding that similar language should be interpreted in the same manner, this court held that the rationale of Copeland was equally persuasive as applied to the DIDA. Id. Therefore, we concluded that late charges are interest under section 521 of the DIDA Id, at 136.
In Greenwood Trust Co. v. Massachusetts, 971 F.2d 818 (1st Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1052, 113 S.Ct. 974, 122 L.Ed.2d 129 (1993), the First Circuit Court of Appeals also considered whether late charges were interest under the DIDA. In its analysis, the Greenwood court reviewed the historical definition of “interest” and noted that the plain meaning of “interest” is not necessarily restricted to numerical percentage rates. Id. at 824. Citing both reference works and federal opinions, the court concluded that a “late fee is sufficiently related to the use and forbearance of money or damages for its detention that it can appropriately be classified as interest.” Id. at 825. The Greenwood decision was cited as supporting authority in both Copeland and Stoorman.
Most recently, the United States Supreme Court held in Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 1730, 135 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996), that credit card late charges are interest under the NBA. In Smiley, a credit card holder alleged that the late charges assessed against her were impermissible penalties. Id. at -, 116 S.Ct. at 1732. The Supreme Court concluded that it should necessarily defer to the reasonable interpretation of the agency charged with [1290]*1290regulating the Act. Id. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 1736. With respect to the NBA, the Comptroller of Currency (Comptroller) had promulgated a regulation interpreting late charges as interest. Id. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 1733; 61 Fed.Reg. 4869 (Feb. 9, 1996) (to be codified at 12 C.F.R. § 7.4001(a)).
The credit card customer in Smiley argued that the late fees were not interest because they did not vary based on the amount of the payment owed or the length of the delay. Smiley, — U.S. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 1736. In determining whether the Comptroller’s interpretation was a reasonable one, the Supreme Court considered the historical treatment of late charges as interest. First, the Court noted that most legal dictionaries contemporaneous with the enactment of the NBA did not place such a limitation on the definition of interest. Id. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 1735. Second, in response to the customer’s argument that a charge must be time- and rate-based to be interest, the Court noted that “[a]ny flat charge may ... readily be converted to a percentage rate.... And there is no apparent reason why home-state-approved percentage charges should be permissible but home-state-approved flat charges unlawful.” Id. at ——, 116 S.Ct. at 1736 (citations omitted). In accord with our decision in Copeland, the Supreme Court concluded that the Comptroller’s definition of interest was reasonable and was therefore entitled to deference. Smiley, — U.S. at -, 116 S.Ct. at 1736.
While these cases construing federal statutes are not controlling in the present case, the mode of analysis, which defined late charges by considering the traditional meaning and use of the term “interest,” is persuasive. Consistent with that analysis, we agree that whether a charge is expressed as a flat fee or a percentage rate does not determine whether a charge is interest. As expressed in both Greenwood and Smiley, as long as the charge can be converted into a percentage rate, it correctly can be categorized as interest.
Applying this analysis to the specific language of section 5-12-103(2), we conclude that the late charges involved in this case properly should be categorized as interest. The usury statute permits parties to stipulate to the payment of charges “as an incident to or as a condition of the extension of credit” as long as the “sum of all charges” does not exceed 45%. § 5-12-103(1) & (2), 2 C.R.S. (1992). By using the phrase “sum of all charges” the legislature contemplated that the parties may provide for more than just a single percentage-based charge. In this ease, the debtor agreed to the specific late charges both initially and again when the note was modified; the late charge provision was an express term of the promissory note. The late charge was a condition of extending credit after the initial default. It served to promote timely payments and to compensate ' the creditor for the increased risk and expense of lending money she incurred when extending credit to a debtor who already had failed to make timely payments. The parties agreed that the interest rate of the loan was 13% of the principal if the payments were made on time but if one or more payments were not made on time, a late charge was added which effectively increased the overall interest rate. In essence, the late charges were a “default interest” charge for the debt- or’s failure to pay off the note according to its terms.
Colorado has traditionally recognized that parties have the right to stipulate to a higher default interest rate when a loan is not paid off according to its terms. In McKay v. Belknap Savings Bank, 27 Colo. 50, 59 P. 745 (1899), this court was asked to determine whether parties can agree to an increased interest rate contingent upon nonpayment of either principal or interest when due. In McKay, the parties had agreed to an initial interest rate of 6% which would increase to 12% upon default. Id. at 51, 59 P. at 746. The usury statute, in effect at that time allowed parties to stipulate to “the payment of a greater or higher rate of interest than eight per cent per annum.” Id. at 54, 59 P. at 747 (quoting Section 2253, Mills’ Ann. St.). The McKay court held that the statute allowed the parties to stipulate to a higher rate [1291]*1291contingent upon default, stating, “the parties to this note unquestionably had the right to stipulate that a larger rate should be paid upon the failure to pay a smaller one when due.” Id.
More recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado held that a loan default rate of 24% was not unreasonable or usurious under Colorado law. In In re Wood Family Interests, Ltd., 135 B.R. 407 (Bankr.D.Colo.1989), a creditor objected to a debtor’s planned bankruptcy reorganization and argued that the 24% default interest rate to which the parties had agreed was enforceable. Id. at 409. The bankruptcy court agreed and, citing McKay and section 5-12-103, stated that the 24% rate was “within reason and ... not usurious in Colorado.” Id.
When these decisions are considered in conjunction with the statutory language of the current usury statute, it is clear that default interest is enforceable as interest on a nonconsumer loan under Colorado law. In this case, the parties entered into a contingency agreement as part of the loan to impose additional charges upon a late payment of either interest or principal. Because the numerical late charges are easily convertible to a percentage of the unpaid balance of the loan, and the late charges were a condition of the credit being extended, we find that the charges are interest under the usury statute section 5-12-103.
The debtor, however, contends that Concord Realty Co. v. Continental Funding Corp., 776 P.2d 1114 (Colo.1989), requires a different analysis and result. In Concord, we reversed a finding of fraud in a complicated nonconsumer loan involving two promissory notes secured by a wrap-around deed of trust. The finding of fraud was based in part on expert testimony that the effective interest rate of the loan was 46%. We held that the expert’s testimony was incompetent to establish the effective interest rate because it improperly characterized certain charges as interest when the items should have been treated as principal. Id. at 1121-23.
The Concord opinion noted that the definition of “interest” in the nonconsumer usury statute at section 5-12-103(2) is in part the same as the definition of “loan finance charge” for consumer loans at section 5-3-109(1), which is part of the Colorado version of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (U.C.C.C.). Concord, 776 P.2d at 1120. For ease of comparison, we repeat the language of the usury statute section 5-12-103 which defines “interest” as
the sum of all charges payable directly or indirectly by a debtor and imposed directly or indirectly by a lender as an incident to or as a condition of the extension of credit to the debtor, whether paid or payable by the debtor, the lender, or any other person on behalf of the debtor to the lender or to a third party.
§ 5-12-103(2), 2 C.R.S. (1992). Using in part the same language in its definition of “loan finance charge,” the U.C.C.C. section 5-3-109 provides:
“Loan finance charge” means the sum of all charges payable directly or indirectly by a debtor and imposed directly or indirectly by a lender as an incident to or as a condition of the extension of credit to the debtor, whether paid or payable by the debtor, the lender, or any other person on behalf of the debtor to the lender or to a third party, including any of the following types of charges which are applicable: Interest or any amount payable under a point, discount, or other system of charges, however denominated, premium, or other charge for any guarantee or insurance protecting the lender against the debtor’s default or other credit loss; and charges incurred for investigating the collateral or credit-worthiness of the debtor or for commissions or brokerage of obtaining the credit. The term does not include charges as a result of default, additional charges (section 5-3-202), delinquency charges (section 5-3-203), or deferral charges (section 5-3-204).
§ 5-3-109(1), 2 C.R.S. (1992). In Concord, we looked to the specific examples of loan
[1292]*1292finance charges in the U.C.C.C. statute as a guide to determine whether the disputed charges came within the nonconsumer loan definition of “interest.” On this basis, we concluded that origination fees were included in the nonconsumer definition of “interest,” and that closing costs in a real estate transaction, such as appraisal fees, inspection fees, credit reports and legal fees, were better characterized as principal. Concord, 776 P.2d at 1120-22; see also § 5-3-202(3), 2 C.R.S. (1992) (describing “additional charges”); § 5-3-107(3)(c)(II) (including “additional charges” as “principal”).
The debtor argues that we should utilize the same reasoning here. Because the consumer loan definition of “loan finance charge” specifically excludes “charges as a result of default,” the debtor contends that the analysis applied in Concord requires that default charges are necessarily excluded from interest in the nonconsumer loan context. We disagree.
Concord did not discuss late charges and made only a passing reference to the default of the loan at issue resulting in “the accrual of additional interest.” Concord, 776 P.2d at 1120. Moreover, Concord was decided before Copeland, Stoorman, and the related eases and did not have the benefit of the historical definition of interest discussed in those cases. Concord is not dispositive and the question is whether its reasoning should be extended to cover the case now before us. For reasons discussed below, we decline to so extend Concord.
The Concord decision discussed the distinction between interest and principal under the usury statute section 5-12-103(2). In determining what constituted interest, we used the examples in the U.C.C.C. because of the similarity of the definition of “interest” and “loan finance charge.” We included the additional charges in principal because the U.C.C.C. draws that distinction. The present case, however, requires us to distinguish between interest and a penalty, and the U.C.C.C. provides no useful guidance in making that distinction.
The fact that the legislature specifically excluded default charges from the U.C.C.C. definition of “loan finance charge” does not persuade us that the legislature intended to exclude late charges from the usury definition of “interest,” i.e., charges imposed “as an incident to or as a condition of the extension of credit.” § 5-12-103(2), 2 C.R.S. (1992). On the contrary, we find that the legislature excepted late charges from the general definition of “loan finance charge” for the purpose of providing specially tailored provisions for such charges in the context of consumer loans.3 In contrast, the legislature did not except default or delinquency charges from the usury definition of “interest” or enact special late charge provisions in the nonconsumer loan context. This distinction in the two statutory schemes indicates that the legislature intended to regulate default charges under the general usury interest provision found at section 5-12-103.4 As previously noted, this conclusion is consis[1293]*1293tent with Colorado ease law enforcing reasonable default interest charges. See McKay, 27 Colo, at 54-55, 59 P. at 747; see also Capek v. Monahan, 117 Colo. 131, 184 P.2d 501, 502 (Colo.1947); In re Wood, 135 B.R. at 409.
The construction urged by the debtor fails to recognize the different purposes served by the two statutes. One of the express purposes of the U.C.C.C. is to “protect consumer buyers, lessees, and borrowers against unfair practices by some suppliers of consumer credit.” § 5-1-102, 2 C.R.S. (1992). The statute is designed to protect a typically unsophisticated borrower from a generally sophisticated lender. Therefore, the U.C.C.C. expressly limits the types of charges and rates that can be imposed on a borrower by a lender. See §§ 5-3-101 to -603, 2 C.R.S. (1992). The usury statute, on the other hand, applies to extensions of credit not already covered by articles 1 through 9. The usury statute sets a presumptive ceiling of 45% and applies only to noneonsumer loans. § 5-12-103, 2 C.R.S. (1992).
The debtor here was not in a position analogous to an unsophisticated borrower. Rather, the parties in this ease were on relatively equal footing in terms of financial acumen and we give effect to the fact that the parties agreed to these late charges both initially and after the note was modified. Moreover, the distinct differences between the consumer loan and noneonsumer loan settings convince us that there is no policy benefit in applying the protections of the U.C.C.C. to the usury statute section 5-12-103 with respect to late charges. Thus, we refuse to do so.
In light of Colorado case law and the broad statutory definition of “interest” in the usury statute section 5-12-103, we hold that the late charges in this case are properly categorized as interest. Unlike the definition of “loan finance charge” for consumer loans, the nonconsumer usury statute does not exclude late charges from its definition of “interest.” Further, the fixed late charge in this case is easily convertible to a percentage of the unpaid balance. The late charge in this case is essentially default interest and the effective rate of .the charge must be analyzed to determine if it is usurious.
IV.
Having concluded that the fixed late charges in this case are essentially default interest and are statutorily included in the definition of “interest” under the usury statute section 5-12-103(2), we now must determine whether the applied rate was usurious. The debtor contends that treating the late charges in this case as default interest is contrary to the computation provision of the usury statute. The debtor points out that the usury statute requires that the terms of the loan be analyzed from its inception to determine if the rate is usurious. The debt- or argues that since it can not be determined at the inception of the loan whether the total interest rate is less than the 45% maximum rate of the usury statute, the late charges must be analyzed as penalties.5
With respect to rate computation, the usury statute specifically states:
The rate of interest shall be deemed to be excessive of the limit under this section only if it could have been determined at .the time of the stipulation by mathematical computation that such rate would exceed an annual rate of forty-five percent when the rate of interest was calculated on the unpaid balances of the debt on the assumption that the debt is to be paid according to [1294]*1294its terms and mil not be paid before the end of the agreed term.
§ 5-12-103(1), 2 C.R.S. (1992). Relying again on Concord, the debtor contends that since default interest or late charges are applied only if a loan is not paid off according to its terms, it is impossible to determine if the charges are unenforceable under the statute. We disagree.
The rate computation provision must be understood in context. Prior to 1972, the nonconsumer usury statute simply stated that parties could stipulate to an interest rate higher than 6%.1963 C.R.S. § 73-12-3. In 1972, the legislature amended the criminal code by adding a new article entitled “Offenses in the MaMng, Financing, or Collection of Loans.” See Ch. 50, sec. 3, § 40-15-101 to -108, 1972 Colo. S.ess. Laws 286, 288-291. As part of that Act, the legislature statutorily defined the crime of engaging in criminal usury and provided that a person was guilty of criminal usury if he or she “knowingly charges, takes, or receives any money or other property as a loan finance charge where the charge exceeds an annual percentage rate of 45 percent.” § 40-15-104, 17 C.R.S. (1973). Under the same statute, it was an affirmative defense to the crime of criminal usury if:
[A]t the time of making said loan finance charge it could not have been determined by a mathematical computation that the annual percentage rate would exceed an annual percentage rate of forty-five percent;
[or]
[T]he loan finance charge was not in excess of an annual percentage rate of forty-five percent when the rate of the finance charge was calculated on the unpaid balance of the debt on the assumption that the debt is to be paid according to its terms and is not paid before the end of the agreed term.
§ 40-15-104(2)(a) & (b), 17 C.R.S. (1973).
The same act also amended the usury statute now codified at section 5-12-103. See Ch. 50, sec. 6, § 73-12-103, 1972 Colo. Sess. Laws 286, 292 (now codified at § 5-12-103, 2 C.R.S. (1992)). In order to be consistent with the criminal code, the legislature applied the same 45% ceiling to the usury statute applicable in this case. It also added the above quoted affirmative defense mens rea language to the computation provision of the usury statute without changing the definition of “interest.” Interpreted literally, the computation provision would require a finding that default interest can never be usurious because the effective rate of interest cannot be computed at the loan’s inception. Surely it cannot have been the legislature’s intent to so limit the usury statute.
The rules of statutory construction require us to give effect to each and every word enacted by the legislature unless to do so would cause an absurd result. Conte v. Meyer, 882 P.2d 962, 965 (Colo.1994); Snyder Oil Co. v. Embree, 862 P.2d 259, 262 (Colo.1993). This is one of those rare eases when we can not apply the statutory language as written for default interest. We reach this conclusion for two reasons. First, as discussed above, Colorado case law indicates that reasonable default interest is legal and enforceable. See Capek v. Monahan, 117 Colo. 131, 184 P.2d 501, 502 (Colo.1947); McKay, 27 Colo, at 54-55, 59 P. at 747; In re Wood, 135 B.R. at 409: These cases concerned the reasonableness of a default rate of interest and were based on the usury statutes in effect at that time. More importantly, these cases accepted that penalties were unenforceable, but concluded that the rates involved were reasonable and therefore not penalties under Colorado law. McKay, 27 Colo, at 54-55, 59 P. at 747; In re Wood, 135 B.R. at 409-10; but see Browne v. Steck, 2 Colo. 70, 78 (1873)(effeetive interest rate of 120% is a penalty because it does not bear a reasonable relationship with the value of money). A literal reading of the computation provision would leave us with no legislative guidance to determine when a default interest rate was reasonable.
Second, when an effective interest rate is retrospectively computed after all forms of [1295]*1295interest charges have been assessed, and the rate is determined to be under 45%, it stands to reason that the creditor did not intend to collect a higher rate of interest at the loan’s inception. Since the legislature’s intent was to avoid imposing criminal liability on a creditor who lacked intent to charge interest at a rate higher than 45%, the fact that such a rate was not charged shows that the loan was not usurious and the creditor’s original intent is irrelevant. Only if the effective interest rate actually exceeded- 45% would the question arise whether the creditor intended to commit usury.
Clearly, the legislature has concluded that, absent specific statutory provisions to the contrary, an applied rate of interest that is under 45% is reasonable. We are not persuaded that the analysis should be changed simply because the interest rate only approaches the 45% ceiling in the event of a late payment. Therefore, we hold that for noneonsumer loans a default interest rate is also reasonable and enforceable so long as the applied per annum rate, when added to the initial rate charged on the outstanding principal, is less than 45% of the unpaid principal balance at the time of the default.
In this case, the parties agreed to impose additional charges upon a late payment of either interest or principal. Although, the parties agreed that the daily charge was $700 per day, the creditor seeks an applied rate of only $413.83 per day. These late charges easily are convertible to a percentage of the unpaid balance of the loan. At the time of the default the unpaid balance of the loan was $472,764.45. Therefore, the default interest rate is 31.9% which, when added to the initial rate of 13%, results in an effective rate of 44.9%. Because that rate is not usurious under section 5-12-103, it is a reasonable and enforceable rate of interest.
V.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and return the case to the court of appeals with directions to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VOLLACK, C.J., dissents, and LOHR, J., joins in the dissent.
SCOTT, J., does not participate.