Fun, fun, fun. No default judgement for me. I received a reply from a local law firm regarding the AP I field against my student loan servicer. Frankly, the response leaves me baffled. Wondering if it's just legal jargon or if it just shows the law firm is lazy as all heck. The attorney represents Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC).
Here are some example statements from their answer followed by my comments:
"XXX lacks information and knowledge sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Complaint."
Paragraph 2 -- I identify the company against whom I made the AP, i.e., that I owe them money.
Paragraph 3 -- I identify the school and degrees for which the student loans were taken.
Paragraph 4 -- I listed the address for the company that serviced/held my student loan.
How could ECMC be ignorant of those "allegations"??? They are simple facts.
As to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of the Complaint, ECMC denies the first sentence in each of Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10.
Paragraph 10 -- I state that I have made good faith efforts to pay my student loans.
From January 2002 to June 2010 I made every payment in full and on time. In July I put my loans into deferment for medical reasons. If making every single payment in full and on time does not constitute good faith, what on earth does? Never taking the loan in the first place??
They're even asking "That the Court award such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper."
Anyway, I'm curious if these inane statements are par for the course or a sign that the lawyers are lazy and/or stupid. I have a cancer that has a 5 year survival rate of about 5%. I make 4-5 long-distance medical trips per quarter for checkups, which costs a good chunk of change. I can't imagine a judge is going to be too impressed with their attempt to recoup court fees.
Here are some example statements from their answer followed by my comments:
"XXX lacks information and knowledge sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Complaint."
Paragraph 2 -- I identify the company against whom I made the AP, i.e., that I owe them money.
Paragraph 3 -- I identify the school and degrees for which the student loans were taken.
Paragraph 4 -- I listed the address for the company that serviced/held my student loan.
How could ECMC be ignorant of those "allegations"??? They are simple facts.
As to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of the Complaint, ECMC denies the first sentence in each of Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10.
Paragraph 10 -- I state that I have made good faith efforts to pay my student loans.
From January 2002 to June 2010 I made every payment in full and on time. In July I put my loans into deferment for medical reasons. If making every single payment in full and on time does not constitute good faith, what on earth does? Never taking the loan in the first place??
They're even asking "That the Court award such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper."
Anyway, I'm curious if these inane statements are par for the course or a sign that the lawyers are lazy and/or stupid. I have a cancer that has a 5 year survival rate of about 5%. I make 4-5 long-distance medical trips per quarter for checkups, which costs a good chunk of change. I can't imagine a judge is going to be too impressed with their attempt to recoup court fees.
341 Meeting 12-16-2010 
Comment