It's impossible to engage in contract interpretation without reviewing the
entire contract including every ancillary document you may have signed, and without knowing the jurisdiction in which you live.
However, I am still going to reply to this thread, because you and wife are misunderstanding what the text you quoted means (emphasis added):
...You have the right to request that PMI be canceled on or after the following dates:
...
PMI will only be canceled if all the following conditions are satisfied:
What the second provision says is that the only case where your request to cancel PMI will be granted is if all the conditions stated are satisfied. However, nothing in the text you quoted says that the lender
must cancel PMI if those conditions are satisfied. It clearly says "only ... if", not plain "if". The conditions listed are necessary conditions, not sufficient ones. This interpretation is bolstered by the fact that the first provision says you have "the right to request" that PMI be cancelled, as opposed to a freestanding right for PMI to be cancelled if conditions are satisfied.
As a matter of literal English, this text vests the lender with a discretion of whether to grant your request even if all the conditions are satisfied. The general rule is that discretion under a contract must be exercised in good faith, but exercising that discretion to avoid violating an agreement the lender has with investors is probably an example of good faith.
Here are some reasons why the entire contract and the jurisdiction matters:
- After reviewing the entire contract, it may be possible to make an argument that "only ... if" is not to be read literally in your contract. For example, there may be clauses where the literal meaning would be absurd, casting into doubt whether it is meant literally throughout. Also, there may be a general set of clauses setting forth rules as to how the contract should be interpreted, and some of those rules may give you arguments you can use.
- Your state's statutes or case law may contain relevant rules that change the interpretation of this contract from the literal interpretation to something more favourable to you.
The general rule is that courts apply contracts as they are written, as opposed to how a party wishes it had been written, but there are various exceptions to that rule that you would have to research.
I am mainly commenting because it's clear you did not understand the meaning of the English in the text, and that was worth pointing out. However, please note that this post is general information only and you cannot rely on this post as advice for any purpose.
