We Defend You Against

Student Loan Solutions, LLC

Student Loan Solutions, LLC operates as a significant player in the student loan debt collection industry, though the company's practices and reputation have generated considerable discussion among consumers and legal professionals.

If you need help, complete this intake form.

Student Loan Solutions, LLC's Accelerated Student Loan Collection Action Barred by Borrowing State's Shorter Statute of Limitations

A private student loan purchaser's collection action was time-barred where the original lender clearly accelerated the entire $38,000 debt through a 2013 collection letter demanding "the balance in full," triggering North Carolina's three-year statute of limitations rather than New York's six-year period. The appellate court affirmed dismissal, finding that under CPLR 202, when a nonresident sues on a cause of action accruing outside New York, the shorter limitations period applies—here, the three-year North Carolina statute where the original lender was headquartered and sustained economic injury, rather than the forum state's longer period.

Key Legal Principles:

1. A collection letter demanding immediate payment of the "total amount" and "balance in full" of a delinquent installment loan constitutes clear and unequivocal acceleration of the entire debt, starting the statute of limitations on the full amount rather than individual installments.
2. Under CPLR 202's borrowing statute, when a nonresident plaintiff sues on a cause of action accruing outside New York, the action must be timely under both New York's limitations period and that of the jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued.
3. A cause of action for purely economic injury accrues where the plaintiff resides and sustains the economic impact—for a loan default, this is typically where the lender is headquartered, not where the borrower resides or the loan documents were executed.

Conclusion: The decision underscores that loan purchasers must carefully evaluate applicable statutes of limitations before acquiring defaulted debt, as acceleration by the original lender starts the limitations clock, and out-of-state claims may be subject to shorter limitations periods than those in the forum state.

Citation: Student Loan Solutions, LLC v. Colon, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05125 (2d Dep't 2024).

Student Loan Solutions, LLC Allegedly Violated FDCPA by Suing on Time-Barred Student Loans Through False Acceleration Claims

A borrower alleges that Student Loan Solutions, LLC violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by purchasing defaulted private student loans it knew were likely time-barred, then attempting to circumvent the statute of limitations by falsely claiming to "accelerate" the debts. According to the complaint and pending summary judgment motion, the company purchased a portfolio of long-defaulted Bank of America student loans for pennies on the dollar in 2017, with the sale agreement explicitly acknowledging the loans were sold "as is" with "all faults." The plaintiff alleges that despite knowing the loans had been in default for years and that the three-year statute of limitations had likely expired, the debt buyer directed its collection agency to override compliance systems that flagged accounts as time-barred, sent purported "acceleration notices" claiming to restart the limitations period, and sued borrowers for fabricated "accelerated balances" that bore no relation to actual amounts owed under the loan agreements.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Attempting to collect on debts known to be time-barred by inventing a frivolous "acceleration" theory to restart the statute of limitations allegedly constitutes unfair and deceptive practices under FDCPA §§ 1692e and 1692f, particularly when the debt collector overrides its own compliance systems designed to prevent such collections.
2. A debt collector allegedly violates the FDCPA by falsely claiming to accelerate loans that have already been accelerated, as acceleration can only occur once, and prior demands for full payment constitute acceleration even without using that specific term.
3. Collecting amounts not actually owed allegedly violates FDCPA § 1692f(1), including when a debt buyer calculates fictional "accelerated balances" using estimated payments that ignore variable interest rates, payment histories, and actual contract terms.

Conclusion: These allegations, if proven, would demonstrate that debt buyers cannot manufacture legal theories to resurrect time-barred debts, and courts will scrutinize attempts to circumvent statutes of limitations through deceptive practices that prey on unsophisticated consumers who often lack legal representation to challenge improper collection lawsuits.

Citation: Dawson v. Student Loan Solutions, LLC, No. 23 Civ. 9690 (MKV) (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 2, 2023) (pending summary judgment motion).

Bank's July 2014 Statement Unequivocally Accelerated Mortgage, Rendering 2021 Foreclosure Action Time-Barred

A mortgagee's foreclosure action was dismissed as time-barred where a July 2014 loan statement clearly accelerated the mortgage by declaring "your loan has been accelerated and the accelerated amount is now due" and demanding the full balance of $708,422.06, rather than regular monthly payments. The court rejected the bank's argument that the acceleration language was ambiguous, finding that the statement's demand for the entire sum due, combined with its explicit use of the word "accelerated," constituted an unequivocal acceleration that triggered the six-year statute of limitations. Despite various tolling provisions during COVID-19, including 228 days under executive orders, the September 2021 foreclosure filing exceeded all applicable limitations periods since acceleration occurred more than seven years earlier.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Mortgage acceleration requires only an unambiguous, unequivocal statement using the words "loan acceleration" and a demand for the entire sum due—no specific form or verbiage is prescribed by law.
2. New York's COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act tolling provisions apply only to foreclosure actions filed before March 7, 2020, or where a borrower filed a hardship declaration, neither of which occurred here.
3. The six-month savings clause under CPLR § 205-a, when combined with COVID-19 tolling periods, cannot resurrect a statute of limitations that has already expired when calculated from the original acceleration date.

Conclusion: This decision reinforces that clear acceleration language in loan statements triggers the statute of limitations regardless of a lender's subjective intent, and that even extensive COVID-19 tolling cannot salvage foreclosure actions commenced years after the limitations period has run.

Citation: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Licalzi, 85 Misc. 3d 1252(A) (Sup. Ct. Suffolk County 2025).

New York's Six-Month Savings Statute Preserves Timely Filed Claims After Non-Prejudicial Terminations

Elements of CPLR § 205:

1. Triggering Events for the Savings Statute

• The statute applies when an action is "timely commenced" but terminated in specific ways
• The termination must be for reasons other than:
  • Voluntary discontinuance by plaintiff
  • Failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendant
  • Dismissal for neglect to prosecute
  • Final judgment on the merits

2. Who May Invoke the Statute

• The original plaintiff
• If plaintiff dies and the cause of action survives: the executor or administrator
• For defenses/counterclaims: the defendant who served an answer in the terminated action

3. Time Requirements

• New action must be commenced within six months after termination
• The original action must have been timely when first filed
• Service on defendant must be completed within the six-month period
• The new action would have been timely if commenced when the prior action was filed

4. Scope of Coverage

• Applies to "the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences"
• Covers both new actions by plaintiffs (subsection a) and defenses/counterclaims by defendants (subsection b)
• Specifically includes workers' compensation proceedings
• Excludes proceedings governed by CPLR § 205-a

5. Special Rule for Neglect Dismissals

• When dismissal is for neglect to prosecute under Rule 3216 or otherwise
• Judge must document on the record the specific conduct constituting neglect
• The conduct must demonstrate "a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation"

6. Preservation of Defenses

• If defendant served an answer in the terminated action
• Any defense or counterclaim that was timely in the original action remains timely in the new action
• Applies when plaintiff recommences the action based on the same transaction/occurrence

This savings statute serves as a safety net for litigants whose cases are dismissed for technical or procedural reasons unrelated to the merits, allowing them to preserve their day in court while preventing abuse through specific exclusions and time limitations.

Student Loan Solutions, LLC is not accredited by the Better Business Bureau. Phone: (888) 275-5441; Fax: (866) 344-5837

Texas Location: 860 Airport Fwy Suite 700, Hurst, TX 76054-6247

Florida Location: 3350 NW 2nd Ave, Suite A40, Boca Raton, FL 33431
According to official court filings from approximately 2021, Student Loan Solutions LLC alleges to operate from 230 North Elm Street in Greensboro, NC.