SUBMIT A COMPLAINT

Sallie Mae / Lying during collection conversation

United States Review updated:

While on the phone with a Sallie Mae Representative about lowering payments on defaulted student loan (which I requested deferment paper on several occasions) he told me that Sallie Mae was the government. That seemed incorrect so I went directly to the Sallie Mae website and found this statement below. They used this tatic to attempt to bully me into paying more than I could afford.

"While Sallie Mae was originally created in 1972 as a government-sponsored entity, the company began privatizing its operations in 1997, a process it completed at the end of 2004 when the company terminated its ties to the federal government. Today, the company is a publicly held, private sector company, governed by a board elected by shareholders. SLM Corporation and its subsidiaries are not sponsored by or agencies of the United States of America."

https://www1.salliemae.com/about/

Sort by: UpDate | Rating

Comments

  • Wi
      22nd of Jan, 2011

    Once again psuscum you seem to think that fraud within a contractual agreement does not in any way release the other party. I have many years of contract law ( all A's top 20 school ) and everytime you spout off your views on one side being still liable you never seem to consider in your ramblings that deliberate fraud within an agreement can easily nullify that agreement. Strange you never write about that. WAIT! you do not have any contract law background do you? You sick demented clown.

    0 Votes
  • Wi
      22nd of Jan, 2011

    If it they are acting as their agent and they have a contractual agreement to act as such then yes it would have bearing in a case heard in court. Judges are leaning more and more on the side of the individual now that fraud is rampant by these collectors and robo signers.

    0 Votes
  • Wi
      22nd of Jan, 2011

    Many incorrect assertions in your argument Mica. A contract can be ruled void whether the intent was "initial" or subsequent or even by the actions of a party acting as the agent for either party. Fdcpa does not encompass the only remedy for a party to a suit. One could argue under various UCC code violations pertinent to the specific state it is argued in. Futhermore, a federal suit is a sure way to make many creditors and collectors beg for a settlement. The original creditor is in fact very liable for the actions of a party acting as their agent.

    0 Votes
  • Wi
      23rd of Jan, 2011

    However, Fdcpa arguements can be made in small claims court and do not have to be made only in federal cases. A contract dispute can be argued in federal court or just about any venue.

    First mica you assert a judge can not "legally" void a contract unless certain circumstances apply. ( one assertion which is incorrect. Initial intent to defraud, is only one of MANY reasons a judge can declare a contract void. Acting dishonestly in the process of performance is the one which may apply here.

    Second you assert misrepresentation by a collector would fall under the guidelines of fdcpa leaving only the collector and agency liable. This assertition (#2) is also incorrect. The original creditor is in fact responsible should they have a contract for the collector to act as their agent.

    There are also a few other minor comments in your post which are not 100% correct but I have already proven your comment of only one assertion incorrect...which is all I need to do to prove you are full of it.

    0 Votes

Post your comment