Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marek v. Navient Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

December 6, 2016

ROBERT MAREK, Plaintiff,
v.
NAVIENT CORPORATION, Defendant.

          CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          DAVID A. RUIZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         On 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[1] (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Navient”) filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 12(b)(6).[2] (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.

         I. Factual Allegations of the Complaint

         Plaintiff's 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 servicer. (Id.)

         Plaintiff contends that Defendant Navient was a subsidiary of Sallie Mae until October 13, 2014, when the two companies separated.[3] (R. 1, PageID# 3). Thereafter, Navient became the servicer of the subject loans. (Id.)

         Plaintiff 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.)

         Plaintiff 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.)

         Plaintiff 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.[4] (R. 1, PageID# 4-5).

         Plaintiff 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).

         Plaintiff 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. (Id.)

         Plaintiff's 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, PageID# 6).

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Fed. R. Civ P. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.