Articles Posted in Student loans

Published on:

https://www.tampabankruptcylawyerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/07/christie_d._arkovich_p.a_1_small.jpgThe CFPB announced in mid 2016 that it was looking more closely at student loan servicers  (companies that collect payments from borrowers) and their role in the increased student loan defaults.  It has announced this as one of their priorities for 2017.  Last fall, the CFPB issued a joint statement of principles on student loan servicing with the Department of Education and Department of the Treasury calling for greater consistency, accuracy, accountability and transparency in loan servicing. The bureau followed up with an annual report on complaints it has received about student loan servicers that could bolster the case for industry-wide standards.

Several student loan servicers have disclosed that they are responding to inquiries from the CFPB that could lead to enforcement actions. The companies include Navient Solutions Inc., Navient subsidiary Pioneer Credit Recovery Inc., The First Marblehead Corp., and Xerox Educational Services Inc.

Some companies have lost their licenses or governmental contracts to act as student loan services for federal loans.  Pioneer was one of five private collection agencies cut loose by the Department of Education in February, 2015, following a review that concluded they were providing inaccurate information to borrowers. The other companies that lost their government contracts were Coast Professional, Enterprise Recovery Systems, National Recoveries, and West Asset Management.  They may still be servicing private loans however.  In the summer of 2016, I believe Pioneer and Enterprise appealed the loss of their contracts and won – and as a result are still servicing governmental contracts.  In December 2016, the Department of Education announced the companies that received a contract to continue to service federal student loans are:

Published on:

https://www.tampabankruptcylawyerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/07/christie_d._arkovich_p.a_1_small.jpgThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau just released a snapshot this week on the excess financial problems that student loan debt is causing our older population.  The CFPB reports that in 2015, nearly 40% of federal student loan borrowers age 60 and older were in default.  I’d venture to say that the number is even higher if we add in private student loans for which parents or grandparents co-signed for their children.  Three quarters of these loans were taken out for their children or grandchildren.  Older Americans are the fastest growing segment of student loan borrowers per the CFPB.

The CFPB reviewed the complaints it had received by these older borrowers and noted the following which I’d like to emphasize are potential violations of our national (FDCPA) and Florida (FCCPA) consumer collection laws:

  • Delaying or prohibiting enrollment in income-driven payment plans:  Servicers are not advising some older borrowers that they may have their loan payment amounts reassessed under an income-driven plan when their income changes. Instead, some consumers on fixed or reduced incomes are being placed in plans designed for borrowers with growing incomes. Older borrowers in default report that their Social Security benefits are offset to repay a federal student loan—despite their right under federal law to cure their default and seek payment relief under an income-driven plan.
Published on:

DeVryDeVry University just agreed last week to a $100 million settlement as reported by the FTC.  We are seeing more of our Florida student loan clients start to question their education at DeVry and starting to understand why they haven’t been able to find employment that they were led to believe was likely upon graduation.

This settlement includes $50 million in debt relief—they’ve agreed to forgive all private unpaid student loans that DeVry issued to undergraduates between Sept. 2008 and Sept. 2015 ($30 million) and forgive an additional $20 million in past student debts for tuition, books and lab fees.

DeVry will pay $49 million to qualifying students who were harmed by DeVry’s deceptive ads.  That raises the question: exactly who are these “qualifying students”?  The FTC notice simply says that the $49 million will provide a partial refund to students who paid for DeVry classes.  So if you are a former student of DeVry you may start receiving correspondence relating to these partial refunds.

Published on:

christie_d._arkovich_p.a_1_small
We are about to file a case in the Orlando Division this week based upon the recent discharge of private student loan debt for a non-accredited school that was not listed on the Federal Codes List.  We are relying upon a decision last Spring In re Decena, 549 B.R. 11 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. 2016), where debts owed on private loans to attend a “for-profit” university not accredited by the United States fell within the exception to discharge of § 523(a)(8). See also In re: Meyer, Case No. 15-13193 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2016) and In re: Swenson, Case No. 16-00022 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2016).

Unfortunately, I just learned today that In re Decena was just reversed on other grounds on November 29, 2016 when it came to light that the service was improper.  We noted the zip code they used in their service was incorrect last week when we were putting the finishing touches on our Complaint.  Then today I read that the decision was overturned because the bank, Citizens Bank, was served by U.S. Mail rather than certified mail on an officer of the bank as required.

Fortunately, two other jurisdictions in Ohio and Wisconsin agreed with the analysis put forth in In re Decena and are good law.  It is not likely that the New York Judge in In re Decena will materially change his position after service is properly effectuated and the saga continues, but… you never know.

Published on:

Great news! – Please read all the way to the bottom — there is now a strong probability of discharging federal loans for ITT’s former students, going back up to 12 years – provided you can show you learned of the fraud within the past 4 yrs under Florida’s discovery rule.  This may include anyone who just recently learned of the misrepresentations now that the school has officially closed for instance.

My thoughts on the new Nov 1 Regs implementing the Borrower Defense to Repayment (DBTR) program have been on their own little roller coaster.  This is the program recently announced to help former students of for-profit schools who were defrauded.  Corinthian, Everest, ITT etc.  The school doesn’t have to be closed, but it will be easier to prove a claim if they have closed.

When the Regs first came out I was very disappointed to learn that they were going to apply a statute of limitations that would vary state to state and likely be too limited to cover most of our clients.  I believed we would be limited to 4 years here in Florida for most claims.  For students attending in 2003-2012 which is practically everyone I speak with, this was devastating news.  However there was a little silver lining.  In the Regs it briefly mentions that they would apply any state discovery or equitable tolling rules.  One brief sentence on page 177 out of nearly 1000 pages.

Published on:

Recently I’ve been researching the student loan system and how things work in non-U.S. based medical schools.  Unbelievably there are three dozen island medical schools.  That’s a crazy high number, just how many islands are there in the Caribbean anyway?

Federal student loan aid is generally not available for these schools.  Although they are technically “accredited”, the accreditation itself is something unusual at best and regulated by the Islands themselves in large part.  And while the Department of Education recognizes ACCM (Accreditation Commission on Colleges of Medicine), many individual states do not.  So it’s a bit of buyer beware, there are success stories for those committing to the hard work to pass the various U.S. tests and are willing to limit their practice, internships, residencies and rotations to certain states, but there are also stories of high student loan debt with little to show for it.

So where does the bankruptcy relief come in?  Well for one, private student loans may be dischargeable in bankruptcy when the debt incurred is not for a qualified educational loan and/or an ineligible institution.  In a recent case, In re Decena, 549 B.R. 11 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. 2016), debts owed on private loans, to attend a “for-profit” university, not accredited by the United States fell within the exception to discharge of § 523(a)(8).  We are looking to expand this ruling to Florida in a case we are planning on filing next month.

Published on:

Well the final regs are out now.  But they are 927 pages.  This is gonna take a while to read through — and looking at Halloween costumes on Facebook is winning out right now.

More to come later….

Happy Halloween everyone!!

Published on:


CDA oct 14 2016 ITT Action News
ABC Action News interviewed two of our clients who have attended ITT and IADT:

You can click on the ABC Action News above or type the above link into your browser.  https://www.facebook.com/tampabaynews/videos/10154553756350409/

These students attended ITT and IADT here in Tampa several years ago and have tons of federal student loan debt for degrees that are essentially worthless.  Starting Nov 1, 2016 there is a new program called Borrower Defense to Repayment that may offer them relief.  Provided we can show false representations were made concerning things like job placement rates, accreditation and cost of attendance and link those to state law violations, we may be able to obtain a full discharge of federal student loans.

Published on:

Were you aware that when you tell a bill collector (including a student loan collector) to stop calling your cell phone, they must do so immediately?  Well usually.  It depends upon the type of telephone system the collector is using.  If they are manually dialing the phone, then they can continue to call you.  The reason is simple:  there is a human being on the other side making a conscious decision to call you at a certain time and date seeking payment.

But what if it is a machine calling you?  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) states that calls using an auto dialer or an ATDS must stop if you ask them to stop.  The reason is clear here as well:  a machine is capable of calling hundreds of thousands of people incessantly following a pre-determined script or campaign.  It often seems that nothing can stop it.  So a law was enacted to help protect people from a barrage of calls and save valuable minutes on their cell phone plans.  I had a client just last week tell us that when she spoke with someone asking the calls to stop, she was told she was on an autodialer and the calls couldn’t be stopped.  Really.  Well that statement certainly made it into a Complaint we prepared for filing.

In the last couple years, the industry has attempted to change its equipment to get around the TCPA.  They say that this equipment is TCPA compliant.  The equipment uses some parts human and some parts machinery.  So how much human intervention is enough to allow for the calls to continue?   The industry has taken to using entire systems that as a whole appear to be an ATDS, but each component standing on its own may not independently be an ATDS.  What capacity must the equipment have in order to fall under the TCPA’s protections? The answer I’m afraid is less than certain.

Published on:

We’ve been getting very interested lately in how schools, particularly for-profit schools, are representing the cost of education at their institutions.  At ITT for instance, we’re learning that students were for the most part simply left in the dark about what their education would cost.  By the time they learned the true cost, it was too late and they were already committed.  They were also told that any shortfall in tuition that was not covered by federal financial aid would be covered by “temporary credits”.  Some of our clients are reporting to us that they didn’t know these were actually loans.  Others were aware they were loans but were told they were 0% loans.  Then nine months later, ITT demanded payment in full of the amount representing the “temporary credits”.  When most student couldn’t pay all at once (95% or more most likely) they were provided with a private loan at 13-16% with a 10% origination fee.  That’s 23-26% interest folks!!  None of this was fully explained up front.  This will be the basis for one of our claims in our Defense to Repayment cases.

Also this week the CFPB enforced an order whereby institutional student loans held by a western school were discharged and refunds ordered when a college misrepresented the low payment plans.  Apparently they promised $25 payment plans or something to that effect.  I haven’t had time to find and review the allegations behind the Order.

Today in the ABA Journal, I read that the University of Tulsa College of Law is reducing its tuition by 35%.  They state that the reduction is to bereally transparent about the cost of legal education.”  Interesting.  Transparency.  Were they less than transparent last year?  Now I haven’t been following the University of Tulsa since my law practice is in Florida, either they are ahead of the curve and we can expect more of the same from other schools who want to avoid scrutiny or perhaps they are already under scrutiny.

Contact Information