Consumer complaint received 2017-12-19 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
The party submitting this complaint is Borrower-Spouse B for purposes of protection of personal information. 
The Loan Service Provider ( LSP ) has unilaterally XXXX a fictitious legal framework over Borrower-Spouse Bs financial responsibilities by applying an erroneous limited co-signer repayment liability framework, despite the terms of the Master Promissory Note ( MPN or contract ) expressly stipulating a joint Spousal Consolidation Loan ( SCL ) meant to create a unified contractual recognition of co-borrowers, derived from Borrower-Spouse Bs and Borrower-Spouse As individually-borrowed loans. 
By unilaterally transferring his role to one of co-signer of a regular consolidation loan, the LSP has not only prevented Borrower-Spouse B from equally accessing the rights and benefits available to co-borrowers under the terms of the joint contract he did sign, but they have also imposed the limitations and full financial and legal burden for an individual loan he did not sign.

The LSP has thusly denied or prevented Borrower-Spouse B from acting in any way equal to Borrower-Spouse A under the terms of this spousal loan, at the same time that they constantly and exclusively refer to a MPN for a joint SCL that was approved without any loans for Borrower-Spouse B. 
Borrower-Spouse B has attempted to have himself released from this loan because of his lack of legal consideration, but XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ( doing business as XXXX XXXX XXXX ), and now Nelnet ( all LSPs are treated as a single entity under the terms of transference ) have all denied this request. 
The signed MPN does not contain a section for a voluntary co-signor, as it was meant to provide for the consolidation of loans held by two separate but married borrowers. A loan consolidation form for a single individual with a co-signor was not submitted, although it was an available option at the time. 
In Section B. Spouse Information, the form expressly states Only complete this section if your spouse has eligible loans and you both wish to consolidate jointly. If you complete Section B, also include your spouses loan ( s ) in section D.1 and D.2. Your spouse must also sign and date item 38 in Section G. 
Section F of the MPN also provides for treating both signatories to the contract as a single unit. Section F further states, If I am applying jointly with my spouse, I further understand that my Federal Consolidation Loan will be fully discharged only if both of us qualify for discharge, and may be partially discharged if only one of us qualifies for discharge. 
The signed MPN was used specifically for consolidating loans held by both parties in a marriage, and specifically states that the spouses information was to be filled in only if the spouses loan information was included in part D of the application. The MPN was approved without any of the financial consideration due Borrower-Spouse B, but he has since been held financially and legally liable for the full amount that exclusively reflects Borrower-Spouse As prior loans. 
On XX/XX/2017, Borrower-Spouse A unilaterally, and without consulting with or informing Borrower-Spouse B, requested a change in the repayment terms. The change was processed by the LSP without consulting or seeking consent from Borrower-Spouse B. In a prior CFPB case requesting release, the LSP did not address the issue of their own recognition of the fault in the MPN that had them treating Borrower-Spouse B as a mere co-signor instead of an equal borrower. Instead, they addressed his request to be released by stating that Borrower-Spouse B 's and Borrower-Spouse As change in marital status does not affect his individual liability under the terms of the very same contract they are not honoring.

Borrower-Spouse B never alleged or argued that the divorce between him and Borrower-Spouse A should relieve him of any contractual duties. The divorce was mentioned to explain the court-ordered context of his being the sole payee over the history of the loan, and the fact that, despite the joint aspect of the loan, Borrower-Spouse B is denied access to or otherwise prevented, by both the LSP and Borrower-Spouse A, from accessing financial legal protection tools and resources, in addition to rights and benefits such as filing income tax deductions for the loan payments he has exclusively made ( Borrower-Spouse A has unlawfully claimed this deduction totaling nearly {$4000.00} to date because Borrower-Spouse B has been denied the information necessary to file ).

The LSP denied Borrower-Spouse B his rights under any possible joint loan when they changed the terms of repayment without consulting with him or seeking his consent, and while they continue to deny him full access to the account, including disclosure documents and other communications. While the unilateral change in repayment terms has already been addressed and reverted, the conditions under which the provider permitted this and took action upon it remain and continue to be legally and functionally contrary to the signers intent and consent. The LSP continues to deny the fault in the MPN, imposing unilateral terms from a contract that does not exist.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation