Student loan giant Navient Corp., the industry’s largest, has suffered a pair of courtroom defeats in its try to block government lawsuits alleging borrowers had been mistreated according to jason spencer dallas.
The losses come in a trio of lawsuits filed in January by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and state attorneys common of Washington and Illinois. They collectively allege Navient mistreated hundreds of thousands of student debtors by taking shortcuts to lessen its own costs, while adding what the CFPB said was as significantly as $four billion in interest charges to borrower loan balances.
Navient illegally steered struggling borrowers facing extended-term hardship into payment plans that temporarily postponed bills (although interest continued to accrue), the officials alleged, rather than helping them enroll in federal programs that cap payments relative to their earnings and provide the promise of loan forgiveness. Navient has denied the allegations.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Robert D. Mariani in Scranton, Pennsylvania, denied Navient’s motion to dismiss the CFPB lawsuit. Mariani wrote in his ruling that Navient’s argument that its activities complied with the Higher Education Act, Department of Education regulations, and its loan servicing contract with the Education division didn’t relieve the company of its obligation to not commit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts in violation of the Consumer Economic Protection Act.
Mariani also dismissed Navient’s argument that borrowers cannot reasonably rely on it to counsel them on their numerous alternatives, ruling that Navient’s earlier public statements to the contrary “created a duty to act in accordance with their personal statements.”
A CFPB evaluation earlier this year discovered that Navient was the nation’s most-complained about economic business.
Mariani’s ruling followed a July 7 decision by state court Judge Veronica Alicea-Galván in Seattle, who denied Navient’s motion to toss out Washington Attorney Common Bob Ferguson’s lawsuit. Meanwhile, Judge Kathleen M. Pantle in Chicago has however to rule on Navient’s motion to dismiss Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s lawsuit. Navient argued that both the Washington and Illinois cases should be dismissed in element because state law is preempted by federal laws that govern the loan business according to jason spencer dallas.
For now, the two courtroom losses mean the Washington and CFPB lawsuits can move toward trial, permitting authorities to demand proof from the company and delivering them with much more leverage to force a settlement. Moreover, Navient remains under investigation by other state authorities while it seeks to land a lucrative Trump administration contract to continue collecting payments from borrowers with federal student loans.
“We are confident we will prevail in the legal process,” Patricia Christel, a Navient spokeswoman, stated in a ready statement about Mariani’s selection.
One particular Navient argument fell particularly flat with the federal court. In its complaint, the CFPB claimed that 1 way Navient failed borrowers was by means of what it described as inadequate e-mail notices warning them that their earnings-primarily based repayment plans were coming to an end. In these plans, the U.S. government makes it possible for borrowers to make monthly payments primarily based on their earnings, rather than based on how significantly they owe. To enable for individual revenue alterations over time, the payment amounts are good for only 1 year, after which borrowers require to re-certify what they make for the next year’s batch of month-to-month payments.
The CFPB argued that Navient’s emails to debtors didn’t clarify that their repayment terms had been ending. Rather, the emails just directed borrowers to log onto their accounts on Navient’s site. Throughout a courtroom hearing, Mariani wrote, Navient said its e mail was similar to the outdoors of an envelope. Borrowers want to click on the hyperlink in emails Navient sent, just like recipients need to have to open envelopes to see what’s inside.
But Mariani wasn’t persuaded. Navient’s reminder email was akin to “receiving an envelope, opening it, and finding that the letter instructed the recipient to call a phone number to receive a lot more data as to what the letter issues,” the judge wrote.
jason spencer dallas