HICA Education Loan Corporation v. Stang, No. 1:2011cv00823 - Document 24 (N.D. Ohio 2011)
Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/29/11 granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is awarded $139,451.14 plus interest at $8.71 per day through the date of judgment. (Related Doc. 14 ) (M,G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HICA Education Loan Corporation v. Stang Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: HICA EDUCATION LOAN : CORPORATION, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : ROBERT M. STANG, : : Defendant. : : ------------------------------------------------------- CASE NO. 1:11-CV-00823 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. No. 14] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: In this action to collect on defaulted student loans, Plaintiff HICA Education Loan Corporation (“HICA”) moves for summary judgment against Defendant-borrower Robert M. Stang. [Doc. 14.] Stang, who is pro se, opposes the motion. [Doc. 15.] The Plaintiff sues on five promissory notes that Stang executed to the Health Education Assistance Loan Program from 1990 to1992. According to HICA, the current owner or holder of the promissory notes, Stang owes $139,451.14 in principle and interest as of September 26, 2011. [Doc. 14 at 4-5.] In U.S. v. Petroff-Kline, 557 F.3d 285, 290 (6th Cir. 2009),the Sixth Circuit said: To recover on a promissory note the government must first make a prima facie showing that (1) the defendant signed it, (2) the government is the present owner or holder and (3) the note is in default. For that purpose the government may introduce evidence of the note and a sworn transcript of the account or certificate of indebtedness. Once such a prima facie case is established, defendant has the burden of proving the nonexistence, extinguishment or variance in payment of the obligation. -1- Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:11-CV-00823 Gwin, J. (citations omitted.). HICA filed copies of the promissory notes, signed by Stang, and an affidavit of indebtedness. [Doc. 14-1, 14-2, 14-3, 14-4, 14-5, 14-7.] Stang, who apparently admits he executed the notes and that they are due, has not submitted evidence of the nonexistence, extinguishment, or variance in payment of his obligations. See [Doc. 5-1, 15.] Accordingly, HICA “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact,” and is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court therefore GRANTS the motion for summary judgment and awards HICA $139,451.14, plus interest at $8.71 per day through the date of judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: November 29, 2011 -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
