For anyone choosing a school with no $$, b/c of Loan Forgiveness. Forum

[Nacho_Verde]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/busi ... wsuit.html

More than 550,000 people have signed up for a federal program that promises to repay their remaining student loans after they work 10 years in a public service job.

But now, some of those workers are left to wonder if the government will hold up its end of the bargain — or leave them stuck with thousands of dollars in debt that they thought would be eliminated.

[Stylnator]

Because 10 years of service are required, the first wave of qualified workers will be eligible to submit applications for debt forgiveness in October.

Where exactly is the money going to come from in October? Does the department of ed specifically have $$ earmarked for PSLF?

[SpikeSeagull]

Mr. Rudert submitted the certification form in 2012 and received a letter from FedLoan affirming that his work as a lawyer at Vietnam Veterans of America, a nonprofit aid group, qualified him for the forgiveness program. But in 2016, after submitting his latest annual recertification note to FedLoan, he got a denial note.

The decision was retroactive, he was told. None of his previous work for the group would be considered valid for the loan forgiveness program.

What changed? Mr. Rudert said he did not know. After filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he received a reply from FedLoan saying that his application “had initially been approved in error.” He has not been told what the error was, and has not found any way to appeal the decision.

Well if that's not Kafkaesque I don't know what is.

[UVA2B]

Dear mother of God, this could be ruinous for a huge swath of people.

[guynourmin]

Because 10 years of service are required, the first wave of qualified workers will be eligible to submit applications for debt forgiveness in October.

Where exactly is the money going to come from in October? Does the department of ed specifically have $$ earmarked for PSLF?

Not sure I understand the question: the department of ed is the one who holds the loans that are being forgiven, right? So they don't have to pay themselves to pay off the loan, they can just write it off or something.

[A. Nony Mouse]

One thing to keep in mind is that this is 4 people out of 550,000 who've signed up. Also, it's crappy that they would change their mind like that, but except for the veterans work guy, the three others were employed in more lobbying/professional associations than in organizations providing direct legal services of any kind. So I don't know that people going into classic PI should be worried (at least, not any more than ever, since there's no guarantee that PSLF won't get taken away at some point).

[cavalier1138]

One thing to keep in mind is that this is 4 people out of 550,000 who've signed up. Also, it's crappy that they would change their mind like that, but except for the veterans work guy, the three others were employed in more lobbying/professional associations than in organizations providing direct legal services of any kind. So I don't know that people going into classic PI should be worried (at least, not any more than ever, since there's no guarantee that PSLF won't get taken away at some point).

Yeah, I don't think anyone should panic yet. If we hit October and people working in unambiguous PI positions are being told that there's no forgiveness, then we can all panic.

[zot1]

I'll certify Monday so I'll report what I get.

[half moon]

One thing to keep in mind is that this is 4 people out of 550,000 who've signed up. Also, it's crappy that they would change their mind like that, but except for the veterans work guy, the three others were employed in more lobbying/professional associations than in organizations providing direct legal services of any kind. So I don't know that people going into classic PI should be worried (at least, not any more than ever, since there's no guarantee that PSLF won't get taken away at some point).

I hope you're right that classic PI people don't need to worry too much. Still, it really emphasizes the need to make sure the schools you're looking at have a plan for their LRAP if PSLF is taken away.

[Npret]

One thing to keep in mind is that this is 4 people out of 550,000 who've signed up. Also, it's crappy that they would change their mind like that, but except for the veterans work guy, the three others were employed in more lobbying/professional associations than in organizations providing direct legal services of any kind. So I don't know that people going into classic PI should be worried (at least, not any more than ever, since there's no guarantee that PSLF won't get taken away at some point).

The problem is being able to retroactively take away years of what people were told were qualifying employment. I don't see how that can possibly be valid.

[cavalier1138]

One thing to keep in mind is that this is 4 people out of 550,000 who've signed up. Also, it's crappy that they would change their mind like that, but except for the veterans work guy, the three others were employed in more lobbying/professional associations than in organizations providing direct legal services of any kind. So I don't know that people going into classic PI should be worried (at least, not any more than ever, since there's no guarantee that PSLF won't get taken away at some point).

The problem is being able to retroactively take away years of what people were told were qualifying employment. I don't see how that can possibly be valid.

Technically, the letters were non-binding, but I'm guessing that the plaintiffs' brief uses the word "reliance" a few dozen times.

[Nacho_Verde]

I'm wondering if the current administration could retroactively deny nonprofit groups who work at nonprofits with a political bent.

[zot1]

I haven't dealt with detrimental reliance much (so my bad if this is the wrong concept to think of), but I'm willing to bet many people made career/life choices based on the promise of forgiveness.

[Nacho_Verde]

I haven't dealt with detrimental reliance much (so my bad if this is the wrong concept to think of), but I'm willing to bet many people made career/life choices based on the promise of forgiveness.

I've seen many people taking lower t14 at sticker because of loan forgiveness.

[cavalier1138]

I haven't dealt with detrimental reliance much (so my bad if this is the wrong concept to think of), but I'm willing to bet many people made career/life choices based on the promise of forgiveness.

I've seen many people taking lower t14 at sticker because of loan forgiveness.

This has been pointed out before, but if you took out federal loans, the program is referenced in your promissory note. So retroactively withdrawing a program actually seems pretty damn problematic, even if the letter certifying the program was technically non-binding.

[Rigo]

550,000 people. Damn.

[Desert Fox]

Can't congress nuke detrimental reliance in the same act that release PLIF? It's not a constitutional requirement.

And the masses aren't going to cry tears for lawyers making more than the average person getting 200 thousand dollar subsidies to go to gold plated law schools. Esp. when you'd just be forced to continue to pay the very fair 10% for another 15 years.

[zot1]

Can't congress nuke detrimental reliance in the same act that release PLIF? It's not a constitutional requirement.

And the masses aren't going to cry tears for lawyers making more than the average person getting 200 thousand dollar subsidies to go to gold plated law schools. Esp. when you'd just be forced to continue to pay the very fair 10% for another 15 50 years.

[Stylnator]

Because 10 years of service are required, the first wave of qualified workers will be eligible to submit applications for debt forgiveness in October.

Where exactly is the money going to come from in October? Does the department of ed specifically have $$ earmarked for PSLF?

Not sure I understand the question: the department of ed is the one who holds the loans that are being forgiven, right? So they don't have to pay themselves to pay off the loan, they can just write it off or something.

Ohh, I have no idea how loan forgiveness works but I thought there is some entity that actually gets paid in the end but I guess not if it's just a write off?

[A. Nony Mouse]

550,000 people. Damn.

It's actually a very small percentage of people who are eligible, apparently.

[cavalier1138]

Can't congress nuke detrimental reliance in the same act that release PLIF? It's not a constitutional requirement.

And the masses aren't going to cry tears for lawyers making more than the average person getting 200 thousand dollar subsidies to go to gold plated law schools. Esp. when you'd just be forced to continue to pay the very fair 10% for another 15 years.

I mean, Congress can do pretty much anything via statute, but I have a hard time believing a court would take it seriously.

Judge: Didn't plaintiff detrimentally rely on the terms of the contract?
Defense: Yes, your honor. But as you can see, Congress told them ten years after the fact that they weren't supposed to do that. The plaintiff was retroactively unreasonable.

[PAYEguy]

The issue isn't that 4 people got screwed.
It's that the ED is now saying that its administrator's decisions are not legally binding.
That is horseshit, because they serve as the ED's agent, and obviously induce reliance.
To the extent the letters expressly disclaim any promises of future forgiveness, that's also horseshit, because this would frustrate the entire purpose of the statutory forgiveness program.
I don't know what these four people did wrong, but I'm worried that their lawsuit is going to screw this up for the rest of us.
Is TLS sufficiently organized to prepare an amicus brief?

[Pomeranian]

Scary!

[Desert Fox]

Can't congress nuke detrimental reliance in the same act that release PLIF? It's not a constitutional requirement.

And the masses aren't going to cry tears for lawyers making more than the average person getting 200 thousand dollar subsidies to go to gold plated law schools. Esp. when you'd just be forced to continue to pay the very fair 10% for another 15 years.

I mean, Congress can do pretty much anything via statute, but I have a hard time believing a court would take it seriously.

Judge: Didn't plaintiff detrimentally rely on the terms of the contract?
Defense: Yes, your honor. But as you can see, Congress told them ten years after the fact that they weren't supposed to do that. The plaintiff was retroactively unreasonable.

Yea but if congress says: that detrimental reliance can't be used wrt PLIF then it's not optional for the court to apply the law as explicitly written. Unless you have some constitutional reason. Congress can make mince meat of common law at it's pleasure.

[Johann]

Can't congress nuke detrimental reliance in the same act that release PLIF? It's not a constitutional requirement.

And the masses aren't going to cry tears for lawyers making more than the average person getting 200 thousand dollar subsidies to go to gold plated law schools. Esp. when you'd just be forced to continue to pay the very fair 10% for another 15 years.

I mean, Congress can do pretty much anything via statute, but I have a hard time believing a court would take it seriously.

Judge: Didn't plaintiff detrimentally rely on the terms of the contract?
Defense: Yes, your honor. But as you can see, Congress told them ten years after the fact that they weren't supposed to do that. The plaintiff was retroactively unreasonable.

Yea but if congress says: that detrimental reliance can't be used wrt PLIF then it's not optional for the court to apply the law as explicitly written. Unless you have some constitutional reason. Congress can make mince meat of common law at it's pleasure.

uhhh the law that was in place at the time. you are 1 step away from some weird conspiracy shit. judges also arent allowed to let people declare bankruptcy on student loans but they do still because justice.