United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
A. RUIZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
August 26, 2016, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge
Kenneth S. McHargh for pretrial supervision, as well as for
recommendations regarding case-dispositive motions (R. 6),
and was subsequently referred to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge upon the former's retirement. On September 29,
2016, Defendant Navient Corporation (hereinafter
“Defendant” or “Navient”) filed a
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
(“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 12(b)(6). (R. 11). On
October 11, 2016, Plaintiff Robert Marek (hereinafter
“Plaintiff” or Marek”), pro se,
filed a brief in opposition. (R. 14). Thereafter, Defendant
filed a reply in support of its motion. (R. 15). This matter
is now ripe.
Factual Allegations of the Complaint
Complaint begins by acknowledging that he borrowed over $130,
000 between 1995 and 2000 in student loans under the federal
Parent Loan for Undergraduate Students (“PLUS”)
program for his three children. (R. 1, PageID# 2). Plaintiff
alleges the loans were owned and/or guaranteed by the U.S.
Department of Education and that Sallie Mae was the loan
contends that Defendant Navient was a subsidiary of Sallie
Mae until October 13, 2014, when the two companies
separated. (R. 1, PageID# 3). Thereafter, Navient
became the servicer of the subject loans. (Id.)
alleges that all the aforementioned loans were consolidated
on or about November 23, 2001, in the amount of $148, 736.23
with a 6.75% interest rate. (R. 1, PageID# 3). Plaintiff
maintains that between 2001 and 2014, he made payments
totaling $27, 934.00 on the loans and has never been in
default. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that the online
payoff amount of the loans on August 10, 2016 was $334,
325.20. (Id.) The account was in forbearance until
August 22, 2016. (Id.)
states that on July 11, 2016, he applied for an
Income-Sensitive Repayment (“ISR”) plan and
included supporting documentation of his gross monthly
income. (R. 1, PageID# 4). Plaintiff received a letter on
July 21, 2016, indicating that his application could not be
approved because the supporting documentation was not dated
within ninety days. (Id.)
asserts he submitted a renewed application on August 1, 2016,
with updated documentation. (R. 1, PageID# 4). Plaintiff
received two letters in response, both dated August 4, 2016.
(Id.) One letter stated that the application could
not be processed “because the monthly income you listed
on Item 1 on the application is less than the income on the
documentation you provided.” (R. 1-1, PageID# 7, Exh.
A). The other letter stated that Plaintiff's application
for an ISR plan had been approved and that his new monthly
payment would be $1, 863.07 for the next twelve months and
that he would have to reapply annually for an ISR plan. (R.
1-2, PageID# 8, Exh. B). The August 4, 2016 letter noted that
the original loan amount was $148, 736.23 with an outstanding
principal balance of $331, 507.13. (Id.) According
to Plaintiff's calculations, he will be required to pay
$753, 776.68 over the life of the loan and will be 100 years
old in 2045 when the final payment is due. (R. 1, PageID#
states that he submitted a third ISR application on August 6,
2016, indicating that he received a monthly retirement income
of $2, 590.11 and requesting that his loan payment be
$518.02-twenty percent of his gross monthly income. (R. 1,
PageID# 5; R. 1-3, PageID# 9-11, Exh. C).
generally states that Defendant has “wrongfully
disallowed or refused” his request to pay only $518.02
per month. (R. 1, PageID# 5-6). Plaintiff avers that he will
suffer substantial financial and credit injury if he is
required to pay upwards of $1, 863.07 per month, an amount he
states is not proportioned to his monthly income.
requests a declaratory judgment stating that he should be
allowed to pay no more than twenty percent of his gross
monthly income towards his loan, that he be declared to not
be in de fault, and seeks the costs of this action. (R. 1,
Law and Analysis
Fed. R. Civ P. ...