My husband found out what CA currently holds his defaulted Sallie Mae loans, Windham Professionals.

He called them to set up rehab and at first they wanted a down payment - I schooled my husband good enough to tell them no he wasn't going to do it because the law doesn't require it. Now they want $113 - 1.8% of the balance + fees. I told my husband to begin with that anything over $100 isn't going to be able to be done.

The guy said there is no way they'll take less because the TN Student Association will only take 1.8%

Advice?

The rule is it has to be reasonable and affordable to both parties. I wouldn't waste time arguing on $13. Just pay it.

lol It was the principle dammit!! Sorry, I'm a stickler for things like that

He called back and tried to talk them down to $100, they said nope, he threatened to contact the DOE & Ombudsman's and the lady said "WHO?" My husband explained and she said "Well, we don't care."

Really, I don't care much about the extra $13... but it's the attitude some of these people have!

The Ombudsman won't get invoved over $13. Again the agreement has to be acceptable to BOTH parties. And the DOE wont give a damn since it is not their account.

I know, I know, pick my battles - thanks for all your help Lynn!

The principle is that defaulted borrowers can reinstate their original rights by making a series of reasonable and affordable payments.

Giving people who defaulted on their federal obligation the right to throw whatever chips they decide at the collector was never the intent, purpose, or principle of the rehab program.

They could have used the unreasonable threat to involve the Ombudsman over $13 per month as prima facie evidence of debtor acting in bad faith, and advised AWG.

I'm definitely questioning whether you even know what true "principles" are.

Goodness, I didn't mean to piss you off.

1% of the loan was around $70. I told my husband to offer $100. He neglected to tell me how much the loan was with the addition of the collection fees. We sat down and figured out that was how much we could afford. I'm failing to see what I did was wrong.

In anycase, it's done and over, we'll be making $113 payments for at least 8 more months.

I understand what you mean about attitude. It's very easy when discussing debt, payments, money, and these kind of things for someone on the other end of the phone to make you emotional.

The thing to remember is that their stake in your situation is in most cases nothing. Very little is to come of you getting emotional in any way, and you should try to keep that in the forefront of your mind. If you start to become emotional about the conversation either politely tell them you will call them back, or hang up the phone and claim you were disconnected when you return the call.

In any event getting angry or argumentative with anyone you owe should always be a last resort. I would not fight them over $13 per month, and as you said yourself you have to pick your battles. I would say not only must you pick your battles but you must pick the manner in which you choose to fight them. Principles and beliefs are dangerous things, generally dangerous only for the person who believes them.

I didn't mean to cause a stir over $13 - this is silly, even I know that. But my question was that the CA requires 1.8% - that seems to counterdict what I have been reading here on the forums (and I have been reading. A LOT).

Everyone is all about "1% or $50, whichever is greater". Think if you had $50,000 in SLs and wanted to rehab. At 1.8% payments would be $900, but at 1% they would be $500. Sure that's an extreme example given my situation, but all I was doing is asking advice.. I don't feel it warranted a snarky remark about my principles.

Cynic is basically an angry collections professional that doesn't have much good to say, unfortunately.

The irony is that I don't and never have worked in collections.

I won't stoop to calling you an angry deadbeat.

I know the truth is often not popular.

There was never anything in HEA about exact method for determining "reasonable", nor "affordable" for that matter. General consensus is reasonable based on what's owed, and affordable based on documented costs of maintaining a minimal standard of living. OP never presented enough data about the former nor the latter, but attitude was definitely off base.

That's basically it.

In my experience the truth is never popular, and what is popular is never the truth.

No, I never presented data anywhere about our personal budget; we certainly don't live outside our means, and an extra $100 or $113 expense will hurt us equally.

However, from reading others' situations and general information presented on these forums I know that this hardship will better our financial situation in the long run.

I want to thank everyone who has posted meaningful advice to my questions.