Consumer complaint received 2026-04-19 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: MOHELA
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
MOHELA has now been caught in a blatant, bad-faith contradiction that fundamentally terminates any plausible defense of its illegal collection activities. Your letter dated XXXX XXXX, constitutes a fatal admission of dischargeability that resolves this dispute in my favor as a matter of law. By explicitly conceding that the XXXX XXXX XXXX program is " not certified by a school '' and was " disbursed directly to the primary borrower, '' MOHELA has formally admitted it can not meet the statutory requirements to except these debts from my XXXX and XXXX bankruptcy discharges. I. MOHELA 'S ADMISSION COMPLETELY COLLAPSES THE 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ) EXCEPTION In your previous correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX, your office asserted that these accounts were " Qualified Education Loans '' ( QEL ) under 26 U.S.C. 221 ( d ) ( 1 ). That assertion was a bad faith fabrication now proven false by your own records. The Certification Mandate : Under 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ), a private loan is only non dischargeable if it meets the rigorous IRS definition of a OEL. This status requires the loan to be used solely for qualified education expenses, which are strictly capped at the school-certified " Cost of Attendance '' ( COA ). The Smoking XXXX : Your XX/XX/XXXX letter admits : " The XXXX XXXX XXXX program is not certified by a school '' and the funds were " disbursed to Payee 'BORROWER ' '' Irrefutable Legal Consequence : By admitting that no school ever certified these loans, you have also admitted that MOHELA possesses zero evidence to prove the loan amounts did not exceed the COA. Without school certification, these are ordinary consumer cash infusions that were permanently extinguished by my discharge. As the creditor, the burden of proof is entirely on YOU to prove the exception applies ; you have instead proven it does not apply. II. WILLFUL CONTEMPT UNDER XXXX XXXX AUTHORITY MOHELA is in flagrant defiance of federal law and XXXX XXXX. In the XXXX XXXX ( Michigan ), the Bankruptcy XXXX XXXX in In re XXXX has affirmed that creditors who violate the discharge injunction are liable for compensatory sanctions, including the return of all improperly collected funds. Under the Supreme Court standard in XXXX XXXX XXXX, there is " no fair ground of doubt '' that these loans were discharged. The XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX specifically analyzed the XXXX XXXX product and found these loans fully dischargeable. MOHELA 's continued attempt to collect is a willful act of civil contempt for which I will seek actual and punitive damages. III. JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL VIA THE XXXX SETTLEMENT MOHELA 's insistence that its position " has not changed '' is a demonstration of willful malice. MOHELA and XXXX have already financially acknowledged the dischargeable nature of these specific accounts through the XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX settlement. Damages Already Paid : I was identified as an eligible class member and received a financial payout from your company for wrongful post-discharge collection damages on these exact accounts. XXXX : MOHELA is legally estopped from " verifying '' these debts as active to credit bureaus while simultaneously issuing checks to me for the wrongful collection of those same debts. You can not treat a debt as " discharged '' for the purpose of a settlement and " non-dischargeable '' for the purpose of credit reporting.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation