NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-2 Plaintiff-Appellee
VICTORIA HENDERSON, CAROLYN HENDERSON Defendants-Appellants NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-2 Plaintiff-Appellee
VICTORIA HENDERSON CAROLYN HENDERSON Defendants-Appellants
from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court Nos. 571, 179 and 571, 383
Craig O. Marcotte, Judge (No. 571, 179) Honorable Michael A.
Pitman, Judge (No. 571, 383)
H. GILLIAM, III Counsel for Appellants
GROUP ATTORNEYS, L.L.C. By: Gregory M. Eaton Kevin J. Gillie
April F. Jackson Michael L. Lancaster Counsel for Appellee
WILLIAMS, MOORE, and GASKINS (Ad Hoc), JJ.
these consolidated cases, the district courts granted summary
judgments in favor of the plaintiffs, National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust 2005-2 and National Collegiate Student
Loan Trust 2004-2. The defendants, Victoria Henderson and
Carolyn Henderson, appeal. For the following reasons, we
and 2005, the defendants, Victoria Henderson
("Victoria") and Carolyn Henderson
("Carolyn"), obtained multiple Education One
Undergraduate Loans issued through Bank One,
Victoria is Carolyn's daughter and the loans were
obtained to pay for Victoria's college
education. At some point, the loans were sold or
transferred to National Collegiate Student Loan Trust
("National Collegiate"). In 2009, Carolyn began
repaying one of the loans; she began repaying the other loan
in 2010. In July 2012, Carolyn checked her credit report,
which, according to her, reflected that the loans had been
"paid in full" in September 2009. At that point,
Carolyn stopped making payments because she erroneously
believed that her debt had been either "forgiven"
or "paid off." However, a closer review of
Carolyn's credit report revealed that the loans had, in
fact, been "charged off" and "transferred to
December 2012, the Eaton Group Attorneys, LLC, the law firm
that represents National Collegiate, informed Victoria and
Carolyn that the balances on the loans were still due.
According to Carolyn, she was confused because she had never
entered into a loan agreement with National Collegiate, and
she was unaware that the loans had been transferred to that
entity. Nevertheless, after further discussions, Carolyn
began making payments to the Eaton Group in July
September 6, 2013, the plaintiff, National Collegiate Student
Loan Trust 2005-2 ("Case No. 1"), filed a lawsuit
against Victoria and Carolyn, to collect on an "open
student loan account" in the amount of $42, 595.75,
"together with accrued interest of $5, 797.78, in
addition to interest from the date of judgment and attorney
fees in the amount of 25% of the total of both principal and
interest, and all costs of these proceedings, subject to a
credit of $50.00." The defendants were served with the
petition, along with requests for admission of facts.
on September 16, 2013, the plaintiff, National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust 2004-2 ("Case No. 2"), filed
another lawsuit against the defendants to collect on an
alleged "open student loan account" "in the
full sum of $32, 578.31, together with accrued interest of
$4, 916.11, " in addition to interest from the date of
judgment and attorney fees "in the amount of 25% of the
total of both principal and interest, and all costs of these
proceedings, subject to a credit of $50.00." The
defendants were also served with this petition, along with
requests for admission of facts.
the defendants, appearing in proper person, filed answers to
the petitions, generally denying the facts alleged therein.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs propounded interrogatories in both
cases, with which the defendants were served. Initially, the
defendants did not answer requests for discovery. Rather,
Carolyn mailed correspondence to the Eaton Group to support
her contention that the loans and been "paid in
Carolyn Henderson responded to interrogatories propounded as
I. The creditor indicates a balance on the note of $32,
578.31 as of May 8, 2013. Do your records reflect otherwise
and if so, please describe.
Answer: Yes. I have already forwarded you the updated
II. The creditor indicates that all funds described in the
note were advanced. Do your records reflect otherwise and if
so, please describe.
Answer: Yes. I have already forwarded you the updated
III. The creditor indicates that all payments and credits
have been applied to the balance. Do your records reflect
otherwise and if so, please describe.
Answer: I agree with creditor that all payments and credits
have been applied to balance, which the current balance is 0
on all 3 accts, which my records reflect.
IV. The note includes various terms, including provision for
interest and attorneys fees as reflected in the petition.
These terms were agreed upon when you signed the note. Please
fully describe any terms which you feel are not accurately
reflected in the petition, full detail the suggested accurate
terms; and describe and attach any document which
substantiates an agreement as to any different terms.
Answer: All three accounts are paid in full. Denies any and
all attorney fees.
the defendants did not file any answers to requests for
discovery filed in regard to Case No. 1. Additionally, the
defendants did not respond to requests for admissions of fact
in either case.
January 16, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment, or in the alternative, a motion to compel answers
to discovery. A hearing was set for April 27, 2015. However,
the defendants obtained counsel, who filed a motion to enroll
on April 10, 2015. Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion
to continue the hearing; the motion to continue was granted
and the matter was "to be set at a later date." On
June 16, 2015, the defendants' attorney filed a motion to
withdraw. The district court granted the motion to withdraw
and granted to the defendants "sixty (60) days to obtain
new counsel." Consequently, the plaintiffs' first
motions for summary judgment/motions to compel answers to
discovery were not heard.
September 10, 2015, the plaintiffs filed another motion for
summary judgment/motion to compel in both cases. With regard
to Case No. 1, the plaintiffs submitted the following
documents in support of the motion for summary judgment:
The petitions and the defendants' answers to the
Discovery requests (requests for admission of facts, requests
for genuineness of documents, requests for production of
documents, note interrogatories and domestic
Multiple letters to the defendants regarding Rule 10.1
conferences and requesting ...