34 C.F.R. §682.202 - Permissible charges by lenders to borrowers

Cite as34 C.F.R. §682.202
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
22 cases
  • Gibbs v. Slm Corp., CIV.A.03-12565-PBS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • September 9, 2004
    ...of Higher Education Act Regulations In Count IV of his Complaint, Gibbs alleges that the defendants violated the regulations found in 34 C.F.R. § 682.202(b)(2) by illegally capitalizing interest on his student loan (Compl.¶ 43), and in Count IX he contends that they violated regulations fou......
  • Chae v. Slm Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 25, 2010
    ...flexibility with regard to the form of the billing statements and the decision about whether or not to charge late fees. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 682.202(f) (stating that a lender "may" charge a late fee), 682.205 (prescribing required disclosures but not a specific billing or disclosure form). But......
  • Pennsylvania v. Navient Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • July 27, 2020
    ...promulgated comprehensive regulations that control the student loan process, including the types of charges that are permitted, see 34 C.F.R. § 682.202 ; the kinds of repayment plans that are available, see §§ 682.209, 685.208; and the ways in which those plans can be restructured, see §§ 6......
  • Morgan v. Northstar Location Servs., LLC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • August 1, 2019
    ...reinstated from default and acceleration status. In that case, other charges such as collection charges would also be possible. See 34 C.F.R. § 682.202(f). This case is therefore unlike Boucher, where the defendant conceded that late charges and other charges were impossible. Boucher, 880 F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT