As we mentioned, we have legal correspondence regarding some of the student loan problems that have been dragging on for months and even years.
You learn a lot from examining the legal language in the actual documentation in these cases. It becomes clear just how far lenders and loan servicers will go to try to address the legal challenges they themselves have created through negligence and worse.…
Legal Language Examples from our Correspondence
For example, let’s look at some language from two legal letters – the first one is an assertion by a borrower’s lawyer, and then there’s a response by a lender’s defending lawyer.
First, the borrower’s newly retained counsel drafts the following signs of shady legal language:
Sign 1 of Shady Legal Language
“This should have been prudently resolved without my involvement since there were glaring service errors and mismanagement of [REDACTED] loan account for several years, including how your department mishandled the alleged default.”
Here, we have the assertion that “there were glaring service errors and mismanagement of [REDACTED] loan account for several years, including how your department mishandled the alleged default…”
This is a clear challenge of mishandling. You can see that from the language.
One thing that stuck out in the response letter is this:
“It appears there is much confusion as to the facts, and as to the relevant law…”
Now, just think about that for a second. Does that sentence provide any value in orienting or resolving the case? No. To say that “it appears there is much confusion” is about as obtuse as you can be without lapsing into complete gibberish.
Sign 2
In another section of the response, the writer asserts that there is “a process outlined in the rule cited that has not taken place.”
Keep in mind this is in a defense, a response to an initial assertion. If there is such a process that has not taken place, what is it? It’s really not just a simple omission that the lawyer doesn’t identify what this is!
Sing 3
Later on in the response document, you see the following passive voice:
“[REDACTED] the borrower was placed…”
“[REDACTED] the borrower was placed…”
This highlights an uneven legal and procedural playing field, crucial for understanding. In other words, the borrower doesn’t have any agency in this process. The lender is calling all the shots. If the borrower gets ‘placed’ somewhere, it’s the lender that’s doing it. And as such, the lender has the responsibility to do these things correctly. If there was some negotiation process in the original repayment plan and not just carte blanche for the lender, the legal questions wouldn’t be as thorny or difficult to resolve.
Sign 4
Then there’s this language, also in the defending document:
“There were no servicing errors that were the proximate or direct cause of default…”
Now – think about this.
That sentence does not assert that there were no servicing errors. In fact, elsewhere in the document, the defending lawyer admits that there were servicing errors. The lawyer even offers monetary amounts for the servicing errors, although notably, no apology whatsoever.
But by saying that “there were no servicing errors etc. etc.,” it makes it look like there were no major servicing errors at all.
Conclusion
We don’t know what you call this, but it looks like a lot of misdirection.
So when you read these kinds of legal letters or documents, read them carefully. When a loan servicing company gets caught red-handed, you’ll notice the evident signs where they lack a credible defense. In many cases, these types of issues have to go to some sort of mediation, with or without lawyers involved.
Meanwhile, we’ll continue to provide you with the latest on what’s happening in the student lending world. We’ll keep outlining the available resources for your significant loan issues. Keep in mind that you’re not alone – millions and millions of borrowers are facing serious problems during this chaotic and unorganized repayment resumption era.
Know your rights and follow our blogs for more insightful information!
