Suing for student loans

[lthorp20]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) Michigan. When I was 17, I was coerced into signing up for a student loans by my abusive stepmother. I was, at the time, also a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of my grandfather. Can I sue my stepmother, the co-signer, for the amount of the loan, stating an unstable mind?

 

[GoBoilers_MSU]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) Michigan. When I was 17, I was coerced into signing up for a student loans by my abusive stepmother. I was, at the time, also a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of my grandfather. Can I sue my stepmother, the co-signer, for the amount of the loan, stating an unstable mind?

Did you go to school with said loans? What did you do with the funds?

 

[STEPHAN]

How long ago was that?

 

[lthorp20]

Did you go to school with said loans? What did you do with the funds?

I did, for a year before failing out of school

 

[lthorp20]

How long ago was that?

3 years ago

 

[GoBoilers_MSU]

Not that it matters, but how much did you borrow?

I really don't think you have a cause of action or defense regarding the student loans against your stepmother or your grandfather. You might have another civil cause of action or a criminal action (via a prosecutor) against them for the abuse (especially the sexual abuse).

Co-signors on loans are also liable, just as if they were the beneficiary of those loans.

 

[Taxing Matters]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) Michigan. When I was 17, I was coerced into signing up for a student loans by my abusive stepmother. I was, at the time, also a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of my grandfather. Can I sue my stepmother, the co-signer, for the amount of the loan, stating an unstable mind?

How, exactly, were you “coerced”? Also, did you misrepresent your age in the loan application documents to be age 18 or older?

In Michigan and most other states, a minor (a person under age 18) may disaffirm most contracts he or she enters into. You may want to contact a Michigan contract lawyer to see if you might still be able to disaffirm that loan and thus get rid of any obligation to pay it. Your mother would, however, still be liable on her guarantee on the loan even if you successfully disaffirm the contract.

 

[GoBoilers_MSU]

In Michigan and most other states, a minor (a person under age 18) may disaffirm most contracts he or she enters into.

Generally, if you ratify the contract after reaching the age of majority (18) then you cannot disaffirm a contract. Ratification is generally defined as acting toward the contract as if one intends to be bound by it. His continued attendance and benefit of the education is probably going to preclude him from disaffirming this contract.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Generally, if you ratify the contract after reaching the age of majority (18) then you cannot disaffirm a contract. Ratification is generally defined as acting toward the contract as if one intends to be bound by it. His continued attendance and benefit of the education is probably going to preclude him from disaffirming this contract.

We don’t have sufficient facts here to know if he reaffirmed the contract. But attending school would not be an act of reaffirmation of a loan contract. Whether he actually attended school or not has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting the loan contract, i.e. accepting the obligation to pay as required under the contract. That loan contract is separate from the contract the student has with the school. The issue is whether he did anything that indicated his reaffirmation of his obligation to pay the loan since that is what loan agreements are all about. Moreover, in Michigan, mere silence after reaching the age of majority is not enough to assume the former minor affirmed the contract. Under Michigan case law, in order to reaffirm, the OP needed to expressly state to the lender his intention to pay the loan:

If the deceased was a minor at the time of the execution of this note, the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to show that he had ratified it after he attained his majority. It seems from the record that there was evidence tending to prove that deceased had not ratified the contract. The circuit judge was not authorized in law to presume a ratification because of the mere silence of the deceased for two years. There must have been an express promise after he became of age, or such acts as would have been equivalent to a new contract. Goodsell v. Myers, 3 Wend. 479; Wilcox v. Roath, 12 Conn. 550; Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 58; Ford v. Phillips, 1 Pick. 202; Fetrow v. Wiseman, 40 Ind. 148; Tyler, Inf. (2d Ed.) 84–92; Minock v. Shortridge, 21 Mich. 304; Prout v. Wiley, 28 Mich. 164.​

Tyler v. Fleming, 68 Mich. 185, 187, 35 N.W. 902, 903 (1888)(underlining added). While that case is quite old, it is nevertheless still good law in that state. Thus, he might yet be able to disaffirm the contract if he has not yet affirmed it. Hence my suggestion that he see a Michigan contract attorney to review all the facts and advise on this issue. It may be that he did somewhere along the way reaffirm the contract, but there are no facts yet in this thread indicating that.

 

[paddywakk]

How, exactly, were you “coerced”? Also, did you misrepresent your age in the loan application documents to be age 18 or older?

In Michigan and most other states, a minor (a person under age 18) may disaffirm most contracts he or she enters into. You may want to contact a Michigan contract lawyer to see if you might still be able to disaffirm that loan and thus get rid of any obligation to pay it. Your mother would, however, still be liable on her guarantee on the loan even if you successfully disaffirm the contract.

Such a defense doesn't apply to federal student loans, as long as the student meets federal eligibility requirements.

 

[Zigner]

Such a defense doesn't apply to federal student loans, as long as the student meets federal eligibility requirements.

Care to cite your source of this information?

 

[paddywakk]

Care to cite your source of this information?

http://www.finaid.org/questions/faq.phtml
https://www.fastweb.com/financial-aid/articles/faqs-about-financial-aid

or just google it. Been tried many times.

 

[Zigner]

http://www.finaid.org/questions/faq.phtml
https://www.fastweb.com/financial-aid/articles/faqs-about-financial-aid

or just google it. Been tried many times.

No, that's not how it works. You made a claim, you back it up. It should be easy, right?

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm simply asking you to prove what you say.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Such a defense doesn't apply to federal student loans, as long as the student meets federal eligibility requirements.

It’s not quite that simple. Not all federal student loans are covered. Federal law provides states that “in collecting any obligation arising from a loan made under part B of this subchapter, a guaranty agency or the Secretary shall not be subject to a defense raised by any borrower based on a claim of infancy”. 20 U.S.C.A. § 1091a(b)(2)(underlining added). Part B refers to the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, which covers the Stafford, PLUS, and the consolidation of federal government education loans. Subsection (b)(3) protects the schools who collect on Perkins Loans from the borrower’s defense of infancy as well, “in collecting any obligation arising from a loan made under part E, an institution of higher education that has an agreement with the Secretary pursuant to section 1087cc(a) of this title shall not be subject to a defense raised by any borrower based on a claim of infancy.” Part E refers to the Perkins Loan program. 20 U.S.C.A. § 1091a (West) 20 U.S.C.A. § 1091a(b)(3)(underlining added). Notably federal Direct Loans are not covered and those loans would be subject to the defense of infancy. And it is only the government that is protected in the case of Stafford, Plus, and consolidation loans, and the educational institution in the case of Perkins loans that are shielded from the defense of infancy, as indicated by the language that I underlined.

So it matters very much what kind of loan it is and who it is that collecting that loan. If it was Direct Loan, or a private student loan, the defense of infancy will still be a available to the student, and it may also be available for other federal loans depending on who it is that is collecting that loan. We don’t know what kind of loan it was nor what kind of collection action the OP is facing so there is no way to know if the bar on the infancy defense in 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1091a(b)(2) & (3) might apply. So again, I think the OP would be well served to consult an attorney to review the specific facts and find out what options and defenses might be available. We certainly do not have enough here to rule out the infancy defense.