Nunn v. Student Loan Solutions CA6

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 21, 2025
DocketH051678
StatusUnpublished

This text of Nunn v. Student Loan Solutions CA6 (Nunn v. Student Loan Solutions CA6) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nunn v. Student Loan Solutions CA6, (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Filed 5/21/25 Nunn v. Student Loan Solutions CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

BRETT HAROLD NUNN et al., H051678 (Santa Cruz County Cross-Complainants and Super. Ct. No. 22CV02376) Appellants,

v.

STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al.,

Cross-Defendants and Respondents.

This case concerns a student loan taken out by Brent Harold Nunn in 2008. Four payments were made, the last in December 2012. In 2017, Student Loan Solutions, LLC (SLS) purchased the loan, and in 2022 it sued Nunn and his mother Martinette Angie Luna Nunn, who co-signed the loan, for non-payment. In response, the Nunns filed cross-claims against SLS and four others for violating state and federal debt collection statutes. Cross-Defendants in turn filed motions to strike the cross-claims under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, which the trial court granted. The Nunns now appeal. On appeal, the Nunns do not dispute that their cross- claims arose out of protected conduct and triggered the anti-SLAPP statute. Instead, the Nunns argue that they satisfied their burden under the anti-SLAPP statute of showing a probability of prevailing. Relying on the court’s decision in Guracar v. Student Loan Solutions, LLC (May 20, 2025, H051407) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (Guracar)), which was argued with this appeal, we conclude that the Nunns have standing to bring their cross-claims. We also conclude that the Nunns have shown a probability of prevailing on their cross-claims for suing to collect a time-barred debt and for making false or misleading representations. However, we conclude that the Nunns have failed not shown a probability of prevailing on their remaining cross-claim that the complaint failed to allege the statute of limitations had not expired. I. BACKGROUND A. The Loan at Issue and the Nunns’ Default In April 2008, Brent Nunn was enrolled as an art student and took out a private student loan, co-signed by his mother, from Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America) for $30,000. The loan required the Nunns to make 240 monthly payments of $481.55. An associated credit agreement required Bank of America to send monthly statements showing “the Monthly Payment Amount and the monthly due dates.” The agreement also contained an acceleration clause granting the bank the option, if the Nunns failed to make a payment, to accelerate repayment of the loan by providing “notice that the whole outstanding principal balance, accrued interest, and all other amounts payable . . . are due and payable at once.” Because of family financial problems, Brent Nunn dropped out of school in 2011, and while his father made several monthly payments, the last payment on the Nunns’ loan was in December 2011. On June 25, 2012, Bank of America charged off $45,063.23, consisting of $43,510.08 in principal and $1,553.15 in interest, on the loan.

2 B. Bank of America’s Efforts to Collect in Full In declarations, Brent Nunn and his mother averred that, after Bank of America charged off their loan in June 2012, they received letters from the bank, which they were now unable to locate, demanding that the loan “ ‘be paid in full immediately.’ ” They also averred that, over the next five years, they received letters from debt collectors seeking payment of $45,0623.23, the amount charged off by the bank. C. The Sale to SLS and the 2017 and 2018 Letters On October 31, 2017, Student Loan Solutions, LLC (SLS) purchased a group of loans from Bank of America, including the loan to the Nunns. In November 2017, the next month, Williams and Fudge, Inc. (Williams & Fudge) sent Brent Nunn a letter on behalf of SLS. The letter listed $45,063.23 as the amount due and informed Mr. Nunn that Williams & Fudge had been hired to collect the amount owed. The letter also stated that, “[i]f your account(s) is currently in repayment, your payment schedule will remain intact.” Finally, the letter stated that “[t]he law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it.” Brent Nunn’s mother received an identical letter. On May 31, 2018, Williams & Fudge sent Brent Nunn a second letter on behalf of SLS. The letter once again listed the amount due as $45,063.23. It told Mr. Nunn that Williams & Fudge wanted to continue trying to find a way “to clear this outstanding amount” and proposed 61 monthly payments of $751.05. D. The May 2022 Letters On May 3, 2022, Williams & Fudge sent Brent Nunn a third letter on behalf of SLS. Although this letter contained the same consumer identification and pin numbers as the 2017 and 2018 letters to Mr. Nunn, it listed the amount due as $16,828.80 rather than $45,063.21. The May 2022 letter stated that Mr. Nunn had “failed to pay installments due as required,” that “SLS hereby accelerates the loan and demands all payments due,”

3 and that “$16,828.80 is now immediately due and owing to SLS.” The following week, on May 11, 2022, Williams & Fudge sent Mr. Nunn’s mother a similar letter. E. The Proceedings Below SLS sued the Nunns in Santa Cruz County Superior Court in October 2022. The complaint alleged that the Nunns took out a loan with Bank of America, that in June 2010 Bank of America charged off $45,063.23 on the loan, and that the last payment on the loan was in December 2011. The complaint also alleged that Bank of America sold the Nunns’ loan to SLS. Finally, the complaint alleged that, since November 2018, the Nunns became indebted to SLS for $16,828.80, representing the payments missed in the last four years and, because SLS accelerated the loan, the remaining principal. The complaint attached an affidavit from Christopher Rue, SLS’s general manager, which in turn attached copies of the Nunns’ credit agreement with Bank of America and a statement disclosing the amount of the loan and the monthly payments. In December 2022, the Nunns, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, filed cross-claims against SLS, Rue, and Williams & Fudge, as well as Stephen Goldsmith and Goldsmith & Hull, one of the lawyers representing SLS and his firm. The Nunns alleged that cross-defendants violated four debt collections statutes: Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Debt Buyers Act) (Civ. Code, § 1788.50 et seq.), and the Private Student Loan Collections Reform Act (PSLCRA) (Civ. Code, § 1788.200 et seq.), and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act) (Civ. Code, § 1788-1788.337), as well as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.). The two Goldsmith cross-defendants demurred and filed a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground that the Nunns failed to allege any injury and therefore lacked standing to assert statutory violations. Because the trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, it did not reach the anti-SLAPP motion.

4 The Nunns amended their cross-complaint. In the amended cross-complaint, they alleged that they were misled by the complaint into believing that their debt was legally enforceable. As a result, they allegedly attempted to settle the suit and, when those attempts failed, they engaged legal counsel to defend themselves, incurring attorney’s fees and costs. The Nunns also alleged that cross-defendants violated the Debt Buyers Act, the PSLCRA, and the Rosenthal Act, and the FDCPA by suing or otherwise seeking to collect a time-barred debt.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC
637 F.3d 939 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.
292 P.3d 871 (California Supreme Court, 2013)
Sharpe v. Brotzman
302 P.2d 668 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
Jones v. Wilton
75 P.2d 593 (California Supreme Court, 1938)
In Re Zamani
390 B.R. 680 (N.D. California, 2008)
Green v. Carlstrom
212 Cal. App. 2d 240 (California Court of Appeal, 1963)
Garver v. Brace
47 Cal. App. 4th 995 (California Court of Appeal, 1996)
Armstrong Petroleum Corp. v. Tri-Valley Oil & Gas Co.
11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 412 (California Court of Appeal, 2004)
Scott McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC
744 F.3d 1010 (Seventh Circuit, 2014)
Baral v. Schnitt
376 P.3d 604 (California Supreme Court, 2016)
Barry v. State Bar of Cal.
386 P.3d 788 (California Supreme Court, 2017)
Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.
393 P.3d 905 (California Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nunn v. Student Loan Solutions CA6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunn-v-student-loan-solutions-ca6-calctapp-2025.