Showing posts with label co-signing student loans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label co-signing student loans. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Alexander Holmes v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust: Don't co-sign your children's student loans!

In 2006, Alexander Holmes co-signed a student loan with Charter Bank One to fund his son's education at the University of Southern Indiana. Charter Bank sold Holmes' loan in a pool of loans to National Collegiate Funding, which then sold the loan to National Collegiate Student Loan Trust (NCSLT).

Ten years later, NCSLT sued Mr. Holmes, claiming he owed more than $16,000 on the loan plus accrued interest. Holmes denied NCSLT's claim and argued that NCSLT did not have standing to sue him.

NCSLT moved for summary judgment, which an Indiana trial court granted. The court then ordered Holmes to pay NCSLT $18,183.26 plus interest and costs.

But Mr. Holmes had a good lawyer and he appealed. An Indiana appellate court reversed the lower court's order against Mr. Holmes on the grounds that NCSLT had not provided admissible evidence that it had the right to collect on the debt Holmes owed Charter Bank.

The court's reasoning is a bit technical; but this is a summary of the appellate court's decision:
In support of its motion for summary judgment against Mr. Holmes, NCSLT offered the affidavit of Jacqueline Jefferis, an employee of Transworld Systems, Inc. (TSI), which was the "loan subservicer" for U.S. Bank, National Association, which the court identified as the "Special Servicer" working for NCSLT.

In a sworn statement, Ms. Jefferis' said she was familiar with TSI's business practices regarding loan records. But, as the Indiana Court of Appeals pointed out:

[T]he Jefferis affidavit provided no testimony to support the admission of the contract between Holmes and Charter One Bank or the schedule of pooled loans sold and assigned to National Collegiate Funding, LLC, and then to NCSLT . . . . There was no testimony to indicate that Jefferis was familiar with or had knowledge of the regular business practices or record keeping of Charter One Bank, the loan originator, or that of NCSLT regarding the transfer of pooled loans . . . . [Emphasis added by me.
In other words, as far as the appellate court was concerned, Ms. Jefferis didn't know nuthin' about no loan from Charter Bank to Mr. Holmes. Consequently, the trial court's judgment against Mr. Holmes was reversed.

Why is the Holmes case, decided by an Indiana state court, important to other student-loan debtors? Three reasons:

I. The private student-loan industry is bundling student loans and selling them to investors

First, the private student-loan industry has been packaging student loans into bundles (or pools) and selling them to third parties, and these third parties often then sell these bundled loans to yet other parties. In fact, these loans can have multiple owners.

In this flurry of transactions, the paperwork often gets mislaid or lost. Sometimes the companies suing student-loan debtors for payment do not have the critical documents necessary to show that they have the legal right to collect on the debt.

This confusion sometimes occurs due to "robo-signing," the mindless signing of documents by people who are not familiar with the original transactions. This was a significant issue during the home-mortgage crisis of 2008, and judges sometimes dismissed home-foreclosure suits because the parties trying to foreclose on houses could not prove they were entitled to grab someone's home.

Thus, anyone who is sued by a company trying to collect on a private student loan should demand that the suing party show that it is the legal entity entitled to sue for the money. Fortunately for Mr. Holmes, NCSLT was unable to show that it was the party that had legal standing to sue him.

II. Student-loan debtors need good lawyers

This brings me to the second reason the Holmes case is significant for other student-loan debtors. Mr. Holmes defeated NCSLT on a technicality. Specifically, NCSLT's documentation did not pass muster with Indiana Evidence Rule 803(6). But only a competent lawyer would know how to make the technical argument that benefited Mr. Holmes.

I once thought that student-loan debtors with the right facts could go into court without lawyers and be successful. And indeed, some debtors have won their cases in federal bankruptcy courts over the ruthless opposition of the debt collectors' lawyers.

But many of these cases turn on legal technicalities that a nonlawyer could not be expected to know. The Holmes case was based on Indiana law, but federal bankruptcy law also has technicalities that nonlawyers will find very difficult to master.

That is why I was heartened by the decision of the Massachusetts Bar Association to organize teams of volunteer lawyers to represent student-loan debtors in bankruptcy courts. If student-loan debtors can get good lawyers, they will have a far better chance of winning their cases than if they go to court without legal counsel.

III. Never co-sign your children's student loans

There's a third lesson to be learned from the Holmes case. Mr. Holmes co-signed a student loan with his son Nicholas to enable Nicholas to enroll at the University of Southern Indiana. In my view, that was a mistake. If Nicholas couldn't figure out a way to attend a regional state university without having his dad co-sign a student loan, then Nicholas needed to figure out another way to go to college.

I've said this before, and I'll say it one more time. Parents should never co-sign their children's student loans. Never. Never. Never.

Note: My thanks to Steve Rhode for calling my attention to Holmes v. 


Alexander Holmes v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018).

Steve Rhode. Perfect Example Why Most National College Student Loan Trust Lawsuits are BS. Getoutofdebtguyorg., March 1, 2018.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Parents should NEVER co-sign a child's student loans: Don't throw your life away!

For pity's sake, Christine, say no! Don't throw your life away for my sake!

Raoul De Chagny
Phantom of the Opera 

If you are a parent of a college student and are thinking about co-signing your child's student loan, you should read an article posted recently on and re-posted on Personal Finance Syndication Network.

Moneytips reported on a survey by LendEdu that asked parents to rate their experiences as co-signers of their children's student loans. The survey findings are harrowing:
  • 34 percent reported that their child failed to make a payment on time.
  • 34 percent reported that a co-signed loan hurt their ability to apply for financing.
  • 35 percent of survey takers regretted co-signing a loan for their child.
  • 57 percent said that a co-signed loan had hurt their own credit rating.
And contemplate this sobering statistic: More than half (51.2 percent) of the respondents believed that co-signing a student loan had put their own retirement in jeopardy!

Parents often fail to understand the catastrophic consequences that can result from co-signing student loans with their children:

First of all, co-signing parents are 100 percent liable for paying back the loan if their child fails to make loan payments.

Second, a parent will find it very difficult to discharge a co-signed student loan in bankruptcy. Like student borrowers, parent co-signers cannot discharge student-loan debt in a bankruptcy court unless they can demonstrate "undue hardship"--a very difficult standard to meet.

Third, if a co-signed loan goes into default, penalties will be assessed to the amount borrowed, and the parent's credit will be adversely affected.

There are exceptions for almost every rule, but there are no exceptions to this one: NEVER CO-SIGN A STUDENT LOAN FOR A CHILD.  If your darling child's college plans require you to co-sign a student loan, then your child needs to make another plan--a plan that doesn't put your financial future at risk.


Why Co-Signing a Loan Could Delay Your Retirement, April 28, 2017. Re-posted on  Personal Finance Syndication Network,

Friday, December 2, 2016

Department of Education miscalculates cost of income-driven student-loan repayment plans: More accounting fraud

The Obama administration touts long-term, income-driven repayment plans (IDRs) as a good solution for overburdened college borrowers who are struggling to pay back their student loans.  About 5.3 million borrowers are in IDRs now, and the Department of Education (DOE) hopes to enroll 2 million more borrowers in these plans over the next year.

IDRs allow borrowers to make student-loan payments based on their income, not the amount they borrowed, and to stretch the loan repayment period out from 10 years to 20 or even 25 years.

IDRs lower borrowers' monthly payments, which is a good thing. And, if IDR borrowers faithfully make their monthly loan payments for the entire repayment term (20 or 25 years), any remaining unpaid debt is forgiven.

And therein lies the big problem with IDRs. Many IDR borrowers are making payments so low that their payments do not cover accruing interest. Thus a substantial percentage of people in IDRs are seeing their loan balances grow over time--not shrink, even when they are making all their monthly payments on time. Many people in IDRs will never pay off the principal of their debt, which means that their student-loan debt will ultimately be forgiven with the forgiven amount being absorbed by taxpayers.

DOE regularly calculates the cost of IDRs to taxpayers,  but according to a report issued last month by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOE has seriously miscalculated those costs. GAO estimates that  $352 billion in federal student loans is being paid through IDRs for the 1995 through 2017 cohorts.  Of that amount, $137 billion--39 percent--will not be repaid (GAO report, p. 51). This is nearly double DOE's estimate of 21 percent.

GAO concluded that DOE has miscalculated the costs of IDR for several reasons:
  • DOE did not differentiate among different IDR programs when calculating costs, in spite of the fact that some IDRs are more generous toward borrowers than others.
  • DOE originally assumed that no one in GRAD PLUS programs would participate in IDRs, even though GRAD PLUS borrowers are eligible to participate. In fact, a lot of unemployed or underemployed people with graduate degrees are opting for long-term, income based repayment plans as the only way to manage their enormous debt.
  • DOE assumed that all IDR participants would recertify their income annually, which is a requirement for continued IDR participation.  In reality, more than half of IDR participants are not recertifying their income on an annual basis, causing those individuals to be ejected from their income-drive repayment plans.
  • DOE's cost analyses assumed that people in standard repayment plans would not switch to IDRs (GAO report, p. 37), but the Obama administration is actively encouraging borrowers to switch to IDRs. Currently, 40 percent of all federal student-loan dollars are now being  repaid through some sort of IDR (GAO report, p. 8).
The GAO also observed that DOE has made repayment projections based on the assumption that monthly payments would increase as borrowers' incomes go up over the years. But, as GAO pointed out, it is "challenging" to predict how much IDR borrowers' income will change over time and how much of their original loan balances will ultimately be forgiven and charged to taxpayers.

Jason Deslisle, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said this about the GAO report: "Really what the GAO is saying is that the Obama administration's expansion of this [IDR] program has been done without good information about the effects."  And Alexander Holt, a policy analyst at New America, said the report shows "insane incompetence" on the part of DOE. 

But in essence, DOE is engaged in accounting fraud. We really don't know what it costs taxpayers to herd millions of student borrowers into IDRs, and DOE doesn't want us to know.

And you know what? DOE doesn't care what it costs. All it is doing is maintaining the charade that the federal student loan program is under control when in fact millions of Americans have student-loan debt they will never pay back.


Andrew Kreigbaum. GAO Report finds costs of loan programs outpace estimates and department methodology flawed. Inside Higher Ed, December 1, 2016.

US. Government Accounting Office. Federal Student Loans: Education Needs to Improve Its Income-Driven Repayment Plan Budget Estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accounting Office, November, 2016.

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Black students and the student loan crisis: African Americans suffer most

Judith Scott-Clayton and Jing Li published a report for the Brookings Institution last month on the disparity in student-debt loads between blacks and whites. Essentially, Scott-Clayton and Li told us us what we should already know, which is this: African Americans are suffering more from student-loan debt than whites.

Scott-Clayton and Li's findings

Here are the report's key findings:
  • On average, blacks graduate from college with $23,400 in college loans compared to whites, who graduate with an average debt load of $16,000.
  • The disparity in debt loads between blacks and whites nearly triples four years after graduation. By that time, the average debt load for African Americans  is $52,726, compared to $28,006 for white graduates.
  • Four years after graduation, black graduates are three times more likely to default on their student loans than whites. For African Americans the rate is 7.6 percent; among whites, only 2.4 percent are in default.
  • Four years after graduation, almost half of African American graduate (48 percent) owe more on their undergraduate student loans than they did when they graduated.
  • Although African Americans are going to graduate school at higher rates than whites, blacks are three times more likely to be in a for-profit graduate program than whites. Among whites, 9 percent enroll in for-profit graduate programs; for blacks, the rate is 28 percent.

Growing debt loads for black graduates and high numbers of blacks attending for-profit graduate programs: Disturbing

In my mind, Scott-Clayton and Li's most disturbing findings are set forth in the last two bullet points. First, almost half of African American college graduates owe more on their undergraduate loans four years after graduation than they did on graduation day,  What's going on? 

Clearly, people who are seeing their total indebtedness grow four years after beginning the repayment phase on their loan are not making loan payments large enough to cover accruing interest.  Those people either defaulted on their loans, have loans in deferment/forbearance, or are making token payments under income-based repayment plans that are not large enough to pay down the principle on their loans.

Surely it is evident that people with growing student-loan balances four years after graduation are more likely to eventually default on their loans than people who are shrinking their loan balances.

Scott-Clayton and Li's finding that a quarter of African American graduates students are enrolled in for-profit colleges is also alarming. We know for-profit colleges charge more than  public institutions and have higher default rates and dropout rates. It should disturb us to learn that blacks are three times more likely than whites to be lured into for-profit graduate programs.

Income-Based Repayment Plans do not alleviate the high level of student indebtedness among African Americans

The Obama administration and the higher education community tout long-term income-based repayment plans (IBRPs) as the way to alleviate the suffering caused by crushing levels of student debt. But as Scott-Clayton and Li correctly point out, new repayment options such as  REPAYE "may alleviate the worst consequences of racial debt disparities," but they fail "to address the underlying causes."

Lowering monthly payments and extending the repayment period from 10 years to 20 or 25 years does not relieve African Americans from crushing levels of student debt. We've got to shut down the for-profit college sector to eliminate the risk that people will enroll in overpriced for-profit graduate programs that are often of low quality..And we've got to fundamentally reform the federal student-loan program so that African Americans and indeed all Americans can graduate from college without being burdened by unreasonably high levels of debt.


Judith Scott-Clayton and Jing Li. Black-white disparity in student loan debt more than triples after graduation. Evidence Speaks Reports, Vol. 2, #3, Brookings Institution, October 20, 2016. Available at

Friday, August 12, 2016

Parents who take out PLUS student loans to pay for their children's college education: Don't be such a fool

I'm sorry, so sorry
That I was such a fool

I'm Sorry (1960)
Sung by Brenda Lee
Lyrics by Dub Allbritten & Ronnie Self

Most country and western songs are about regret: I'm sorry I cheated on my wife; I regret mouthing off to a biker in the honky-tonk, I wish I hadn't shot a man in Reno.

I don't know of any C & W song about student loans, but there should be. A recent survey reported that about 50 percent of student-loan debtors regretted how much they borrowed to go to college. More than a third said they would not have gone to college had they realized what it would cost them.

But the people who are really, really sorry are the parents who took out loans to pay for their children's college education.  If they co-sign a private loan for a child, they are on the hook for it even if their child dies.  And parents will find it is virtually impossible to discharge a co-signed student loan in bankruptcy, whether it is a private loan or a a federally subsidized loan.

In fact, I say this unequivocally: Parents should never borrow money to pay for their child's college education.

Yet our federal government peddles Parent Plus loans--student loans taken out by parents--as a good way to help finance a child's college costs. DOE recently posted a blog telling parents that "PLUS loans are an excellent option if you need money to pay your child's educational expenses," although it cautions that parents need to make sure they understand the loan terms before they take out a PLUS loan.

And what are those terms? DOE's blog posting says that the current interest rate is 6.31 percent and that monthly repayment begins immediately. Monthly PLUS loan payments are not postponed while the child is still in college.

DOE then summarizes various PLUS loan repayment plans, including an income-contingent plan (ICR) that allows parents to pay 20 percent of their discretionary income for 25 years.

Of course it is madness for parents to pay a fifth of their discretionary income for 25 years in order for their child to go to college. There are lots of college options that don't require that kind of sacrifice.

DOE assures parents that any unpaid balance on their PLUS loan will be forgiven after 25 years. But note that DOE doesn't tell parents that they could have a big tax bill for the amount of the loan that is forgiven.

And DOE didn't warn parents that they will find it almost impossible to discharge a PLUS loan in bankruptcy should they run into financial trouble due illness, job loss, or some other financial calamity.

DOE ends its deceptive blog on this cheery note. "Yes, there's lots to consider when it comes to taking out a Direct PLUS loan, but there are many benefits to getting one if you need help paying your child's education."

In fact, there's nothing to consider. If your children can't finance their college education without you going into debt, then they need to develop another plan.

My guess is that a lot of parents take out PLUS loans to help their kids go to some fancy East Coast private school, which is foolish.  If your children cannot afford to go to Harvard or Dartmouth or Amherst without putting you into debt, then they need to enroll at a nearby public university and take a part-time job at McDonald's.

Trust me. You and your children will be better off if you avoid all college options that force Mom and Pop to go into debt. Johnny Cash was sorry he shot that guy in Reno, but he was not any sorrier than you will be if you take out a loan to send your child to college.

Johnny Cash: He shot a man in Reno, but he's really, really sorry.

Jessica Dickler. Buyer's College buyer's remorse is real. CNBC News, April 7, 2016. Accessible at

Jessica Dickler. College costs are out of control. CNBc News, July 16, 2016. Accessible at

Citizens Bank. Millennial College Graduates with Student Loans Now Spending Nearly One-Fifth of Their Annual Salaries on Student Loan Repayments. April 7, 2016. Accessible at

Lisa Rhodes. PLUS Loan Basics for Parents. Homeroom, August 8, 2016. Posted on the Official Blog Of the U.S. Department of Education. Available at

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Arbitration clauses in student-loan documents:the sad case of Sierra Roach v. Navient Solutions, Inc.

In 2015, Sierra Roach sued Navient Solutions, Inc. for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Navient had been pursuing Roach to collect on five student loans totaling almost $69,000--money that had been disbursed to Bowie State University, not Roach.

Roach disputed the debt and claimed she was being repeatedly called by debt collectors. She also claimed that credit reporting bureaus were  issuing inaccurate credit reports about her.

Navient filed a motion asking a federal court to stay Roach's suit and compel her to arbitrate pursuant to an arbitration clause that was buried in the promissory notes she allegedly signed. (Roach claimed not to remember signing the notes.)

Roach's defense to Navient's arbitration demand was that she had signed the promissory note with another entity, not Navient.  But Navient presented evidence showing it had power to collect the debt, and a federal court granted Navient's arbitration demand in an order issued last December.

Roach had some other claims against Navient, but she apparently submitted them late and inartfully. After all, she had sued Navient without an attorney and was unfamiliar with the niceties of practicing law.

Some judges deal leniently with people who go to court without lawyers, but not Roach's judge. She had filed a "surreply memorandum," which the judge refused to consider, saying "sureplies are highly disfavored."

Although it is not entirely clear, she also apparently argued that the arbitration clause buried in the promissory notes had not come to her attention and that she did not realize that she had waived her right to sue when she signed the promissory notes.

The judge did not like this argument at all. In a footnote, he cited language from another decision that said: "[T]he fact that [plaintiff] may have chosen not not to access or read the  language of the Arbitration Agreement does not render it invalid or non-binding."

In short, the judge forced Roach to arbitrate her claims against  Navient.

Scholars and commentators largely agree that arbitration generally favors corporate parties. That's why banks, financial institutions, and student-loan lenders force people to sign arbitration clauses in routine documents. Like Ms. Roach, most people do not understand that they are signing away their right to sue for wrongdoing when they agree to arbitrate.

Two comments on the Roach case:

1) Many student-loan debtors are losing in the courts because they are not represented by competent lawyers. Roach's best argument for invalidating the arbitration clause was that it is an "adhesion contract" that she was forced to sign as a condition for getting federal loan money. Courts have ruled for fifty years or more that agreements waiving the right to sue can be nullified if the party signing the waiver is the weaker party with no opportunity to negotiate and no choice but to sign in order to receive a service. But Ms.Roach probably knew nothing about adhesion contracts.

Distressed student-loan debtors ought to have access to pro bono (free) legal services. There are literally hundreds of thousands of unemployed lawyers right now--and most of them have massive student-loan debt themselves. Their talents should be harnessed to help people like Ms. Roach.

2) The fact that student-loan lenders and for-profit colleges are allowed to put arbitration clauses in student-loan documents and college-enrollment forms is a scandal. Secretary of Education John B. King announced recently that he opposes this practice and will draft regulations that will put some limits on it.

But the regulation revision will go through a negotiations process, and any regulations DOE adopts are likely to be watered down. After all, the finance industry and the for-profit colleges have powerful lobbyists and sharp lawyers, and they make campaign contributions to powerful politicians.

For now at least, millions of people are jeopardizing their financial futures when they borrow money to attend college. Even if they are defrauded or get substandard educational experiences, they are barred from filing suit. And if they file for bankruptcy to get a fresh start, the creditors' attorneys are waiting for them to make sure these distressed debtors get booted out of bankruptcy court.


Roach v. Navient Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL 8479195 (D. Maryland, Dec. 10, 2015).

U.S. Department of Education. U.S. Department of Education Takes Further Steps to Protect Students from Predatory Higher Education Institutions. March 11, 2016. Accessible at

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Almost by itself, the Student Loan Program is Destroying the American Middle Class: The sad story of Steve and Darnelle Mason

Several newspapers carried a story about Steve and Darnelle Mason, a married couple who co-signed student loans for their daughter Lisa to attend college.  Lisa borrowed a lot of money--$100,000, but it was probably a good investment because she graduated with a nursing degree that led to a job as a critical-care nurse.
Lisa Mason
Photo credit: Steve Mason &
USA Today

Unfortunately, Lisa died at age 27 of liver failure, leaving three young children.  Had Lisa borrowed the money from the federal student loan program, the debt would have been forgiven with her death.

But Lisa borrowed the money from private banks, and loan-service companies that took over her loans didn't forgive the debt. As co-signers on Lisa's loans, Lisa's parents are liable for the full amount.  And with penalties and accrued interest, that debt has  ballooned to $200,000.

This sad story, which has gained national attention, demonstrates the risk parents take when they co-sign student loans for their children's college education, particularly when they co-sign a loan from a private bank. They are on the hook for the full amount. And unlike the federal student loan program, most banks do not have income-based repayment options. Nor do they grant economic hardship deferments.

Jeffrey Dorfman (2014) recently wrote a story for Forbes arguing that there is no student loan crisis. Dorfman would probably say people like Steve and Darnelle Mason are a rare exception, As Dorfman, pointed out, most people borrow fare less money to attend college than Lisa Mason did, often less than a typical car loan.

It is true of course that the Mason's story is exceptional. Most 27 year-old people don't die. But a lot of them are unable to manage their student loans, and parents who co-sign those loans are on the hook to pay them back.  Parents can lose their retirement savings, the equity in their homes, literally everything they've worked for over a lifetime if they co-sign their child's student loan and the student can't pay it back.

What a lot of parents don't realize is that student loans are very hard to discharge in bankruptcy. In 2005, the banks were able to get Congress to amend the Bankruptcy Code to make private student loans nondischargeable unless the debtor could show "undue hardship."  And  the courts have interpreted "undue hardship" very harshly.  Just a few months ago, a 63-year old man's petition to discharge almost a quarter million dollars in student loans for his children was denied, even though the man was unemployed and about to lose his home in foreclosure (Murphy v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 2014).

Millions of people are suffering from unmanageable student loans.  Although most people don't borrow as much as Lisa Mason did, even a small loan is impossible to pay if the debtor is unemployed.  And the poor souls who fall behind on their payments and default often see their loan balances double because the creditors add accrued interest and penalties to the unpaid debt.

President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan know how bad the student-loan crisis is,but their efforts to bring this crisis under control have been feeble.  The Department of Education doesn't report the actual default rate and its solution to the overall problem is to encourage student-loan debtors to sign up for long-term income-based repayment plans.

In essence, the Obama administration's response to the student-loan catastrophe has been to obscure the enormity of the problem, hoping it won't blow up before President Obama leaves office.  What needs to be done?

First and foremost, the Bankruptcy Code must be amended to make unmanageable student -loan debts dischargeable in bankruptcy. This one reform would shut down the private student loan business because the banks would not lend money for education if they knew student-loan debtors could wipe out their student loan debt in a bankruptcy court.

Steve and Darnelle Mason, for example, would be able to discharge their debts in bankruptcy if they had maxed out their credit cards to go on expensive vacations or had foolishly invested in some get-rich-quick scheme. But they can't discharge the student-loan debt that Lisa accumulated in good faith to get a college education, even though it is crushing them financially.

 Day by day, the student-loan program is destroying the middle class by making it impossible for young people to buy homes, start families, and save for their retirement.  And many parents who co-signed student loans for their children are now faced with the loss of their entire life savings.

This state of affairs is not right, and we won't truly begin to deal with the student-loan crisis until we give people who are overwhelmed by student debt a fresh start in bankruptcy.


Grant, Tim. Private student loan debt can outlive student. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 12, 2014. Accessible at

Dorfman, Jeffrey. Time To Stop the Sob Stories About Student Loan Debt. Forbes, September 18, 2014. Accessible at

Murphy v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 511 B.R. 1 (D. Mass. 2014).

Serico, Chris. After daughter's death, parents plead for forgiveness of her $200K student-loan debt. USA Today, July 14, 2014. Accessible at

Marian Wang,  Beckie Supiano, & Andrea Fuller. Parent Plus Loans: How the Government Is Saddling Parents With Loans They Can't Afford. Huffington Post, October 5, 2012. Available at:

Marian Wang. As Parents Struggle to Repay College Loans for Their Children, Taxpayers Also Stand to Lose. Huffington Post, April 4, 2014.  Available at: