HICA EDUCATION LOAN CORPORATION v. ULETT

Filing 12

OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 9/10/12. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00434 (WJM)

HICA EDUCATION LOAN
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

OPINION

v.
AVRIL L. ULETT,
Defendant.

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff HICA Education Loan Corporation (“HICA”) brings this action against
Defendant Avril L. Ulett, a/k/a Avril L. Ulett Atwell, seeking a judgment against
Defendant for an unpaid student loan. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment. The motion is unopposed. There was no oral argument.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed.1 On or about March 3, 1995, Defendant
signed a promissory note payable to the Student Loan Marketing Association (“SLMA”),
in the original principal amount of $23,673.33 (“the Note”). Decl. of Robin
Zimmermann (“Decl.”) ¶¶ 4(a), (b), ECF No. 9-5. The Note was executed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §§ 292 et seq. and federal regulations governing the administration of the Health
Education Assistance Loan (“HEAL”) Program. Decl. Ex. 1, ECF No. 9-6. On
November 24, 2003, the SLMA sold the Note to HICA. Id.; Decl. ¶ 4(d). Defendant
1

Defendant, pro se, filed a one-page Answer to the Complaint acknowledging that she took out
the loan and stating that she was trying to settle the dispute. But Defendant did not file an
opposition to the instant motion or provide any other information to the Court. If the nonmoving party fails to oppose the motion for summary judgment by written objection,
memorandum, affidavits and other evidence, the Court “will accept as true all material facts set
forth by the moving party with appropriate record support.” Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands
Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168, 175 (3d Cir. 1990).
1

failed to make the payments due under the terms of the Note. Decl. ¶ 4(c). Plaintiff
seeks a judgment for the unpaid principal in the amount of $38,458.10, in addition to
$8,513.62 in unpaid interest and other damages.2 Id. ¶¶ 4(e) and (f).
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, the discovery [including,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file] and disclosure materials
on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; see also
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Turner v. Schering-Plough Corp.,
901 F.2d 335, 340 (3d Cir. 1990). A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could
find for the non-moving party, and is material if it will affect the outcome of the trial
under governing substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). The Court considers all evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. Andreoli v. Gates, 482 F.2d 641, 647 (3d Cir.
2007).
III.

DISCUSSION

In an action to recover on a promissory note for student loans, a plaintiff must
show that: “(1) the defendant signed it, (2) the [plaintiff] is the present owner or holder,
and (3) the note is in default.” United States v. Hargrove, No. 06-1059, 2007
WL2811832, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2007) (quoting United States v. Lawrence, 276
F.3d 193, 197 (5th Cir. 2001). In this case, Plaintiff has shown all three factors. First,
Plaintiff provided a copy of the Note bearing Defendant’s signature. Decl. Ex. RZ1, ECF
No. 11-1 (“Note”). Second, Plaintiff provided a copy of the Bill of Sale and Blanket
Endorsement that transferred the Note from SLMA to HICA, and an affidavit stating that
HICA is the present holder and owner of the Note. Decl. Ex. RZ1 at 4-6, ECF No. 9-5;
Decl. ¶ 4(d). Third, Plaintiff provided computerized loan records showing that the Note
is in default. Decl. Ex. RZ2, ECF No. 9-7. Thus, Plaintiff has satisfied its burden and is
2

The unpaid principal balance of the Note ($38,458.10) may correctly exceed the original
principal balance of the Note ($23,673.33). Under the express terms of the Note, “[i]nterest
which has accrued and is not paid may be added to the principal sum of this Note not more
frequently than every 12 months [and] [i]nterest that is not paid shall be added to the principal
sum of this Note annually” (“Interest Capitalization Provision”). Note at 1; see also 42 U.S.C. §
292d(a)(2)(D) (1992). In this case, Plaintiff provided documentation showing that accrued
interest was added to the principal sum of the Note no more than once a year from 1996 through
2007. Decl. Ex. RZ2, ECF No. 10-2. Because some of the interest on the Note was capitalized
in accordance with the Interest Capitalization Provision, the current principal balance of the Note
exceeds the original balance by $14,784.77. Pursuant to the policy of Sallie Mae, the servicing
agent for HICA, interest has not been capitalized since the commencement of the litigation.
Supp. Decl. of Robin Zimmerman ¶ 4(j), ECF No. 10-1. Thus, there is additional unpaid interest
that has not been capitalized.
2

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See United States v. Considine, No. 06-6118,
2008 WL 4723030 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2008) (lender entitled to summary judgment based on
copies of the plaintiff’s promissory notes and declaration stating that the lender was the
holder of the defaulted loans); Hargrove, 2007 WL 2811832 at *2.
Because Plaintiff has prevailed on its claim, Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in
the amount of $46,971.72, comprised of the unpaid principal ($38,458.10) and the
amount of unpaid interest set forth in Plaintiff’s papers ($8,513.62). See Supp. Decl. ¶¶
4(n) and (o). Plaintiff will be given fourteen (14) days from entry of the Order to file a
motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).
The Court will include any additional prejudgment interest owed in its subsequent
judgment.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED. Judgment is entered in the amount of $46,971.72. Plaintiff shall have
fourteen (14) days from the date of this opinion to submit an application detailing the
attorney’s fees and costs requested. An appropriate order follows.

/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: September 10, 2012

3