WPCM4 07}E|1sPmw >yiy\:@7[% ~af 4 WÊ pѓ 4Dd啩k{i;4֔xX o!eow|U~.z/pp&=O>N!s |xMjep, +>al ӔdfGgVc-gn0&̏Gqve1 lb UCfӆr5|~) y۵p $m3ԥDfzl# ԰B?أ(*`k7HC &XAohe4Y 7+ABhUۼ$qzMs2f4;6s&̌cfSX#?tq Gz >(<Ќ *JX31,}P~E 0! 0 0 0^ 0 0 0e 0 0 0 0O 0 0 0D 0 0t 0 0 0 0A 0b 0 05! 0! 0_"")$ ' ' ' ' ' '0'''''D,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 0J/J/J/J/ B5050 0R0 D30 D-)1 0KV1V1 AS11 02 0D^3 A3HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0EL+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5+ k1| C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU  NDSLGanzevoort NuttIntlAabakusDeLaneyServsC.F.R.MarkerdowneD.N.J.DwelleyD.D.C.affdrevd t]he NSDLLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   R$      5  M  _34_C.F.R._Ԁ674.46(a)(2),(3)(2000).*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  - -(// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x     R$      1  M  _Forexample,Ms.Hendersonstatesinherreplybrief, TheAppellanthasexpressednointerestherein  litigatingVanderbiltor[itslawyer]fortheirfailuretocomplywiththeFairDebtCollectionProcedures....Thepoint t isthatVanderbilthasnotshownverymuchcomplianceofitsmandatedresponsibilities....  R$      2  M  _Specifically,Ms.HendersonassertsthatVanderbiltUniversitydidnotprovideherthe exit_counseling_  requiredby34_C.F.R._Ԁ674.42(b)(2000)andthattheschoolsbillingproceduresdidnotcomplywiththeinformation t requirementsin34_C.F.R._Ԁ674.43(2000). R$      6  M  _34_C.F.R._Ԁ674.47(e)(6)(i)(iv). & R$      4  M  _Ontwooccasionsafterfilingthisappeal,Ms.Hendersonsoughtthiscourtspermissiontosupplementthe  appellaterecordwithcopiesofpersonalchecksandotherfinancialinformationthatshehadfailedtointroduceattrial. t WedeniedherrequestsbecausethesematerialsdonotqualifyaspostjudgmentfactsunderTenn.R.App.P.14and 8 becausethescopeofourfactualreviewislimitedtothecontentsoftheappellaterecordbroughtbeforethiscourtin L conformancewithTenn.R.App.P.24,25,and26.Richmondv.Richmond,690S.W.2d534,535(Tenn.Ct.App.  1985).Notwithstandingourearlierdenialofhermotions,Ms.Hendersonhasappendedtheexcludedevidentiary  materialtoherbrief.Wehavenotconsideredthesematerialsbecausetheyarenotproperlypartoftheappellaterecord. : R$      3  M  _34_C.F.R._Ԁ674.39(a)(2)(2000)permitsaneducationalinstitutiontoconsiderastudentsloantobe  rehabilitatedifthestudentresumesmakingtimelymonthlypaymentsfortwelveconsecutivemonthsafterthedefaultand t iftheborrowrequestsrehabilitation.Whenastudentsrequestisapproved,theschoolmust returntheborrowerto 8 regularpayment_status._Ԁ34_C.F.R._Ԁ674.39(b)(1).Astudentmayrehabilitateadefaultedloanonlyonce.34_C.F.R._ L 674.39(e).(|G2$ !.8IdXXd8         0  M d(|3Ij$ !.8IdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ij$ !.8IdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Idd8     _  I8XXdd8  @ VIINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#IV#Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsApril16,1999 L XXI #IXX #VANDERBILTUNIVERSITYv.PAMELAHENDERSONXXI  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.97C3945ThomasW.Brothers,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.M199800929_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober12,_2001_   AV) ` dE<` A      ThisappealinvolvesadisputebetweenVanderbiltUniversityandoneofitsgraduatesarisingout   oftwostudentloans.Aftertheformerstudentstoppedrepayingtheloans,VanderbiltUniversity x  filedsuitintheDavidsonCountyGeneralSessionsCourtseekingtorecovertheprincipaland d interestdue,collectioncosts,andattorneysfees.ThegeneralsessionscourtawardedVanderbilt P Universitya$9,056.43judgment.TheformerstudentperfectedadenovoappealtotheCircuit < CourtforDavidsonCounty.Followingabenchtrial,thetrialcourtawardedVanderbiltUniversity (x a$5,051.56judgmentandestablishedaninstallmentpaymentplanforthejudgment.Theformer d studentassertsonthisappealthatVanderbiltUniversitywasnotentitledtoajudgmentagainsther P becauseofitsfailuretocomplywiththeFairDebtCollectionPracticesActandtherequirementsof < thefederalstudentloanprogramandbecauseshehasfullyrepaidherloans.Wehaveconcludedthat ( therecordsupportsthetrialcourtsdecisionand,therefore,affirmthejudgment.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed     #IX{#XX.IWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S., t andWilliamB.Cain,J.,joined. ` PamelaHenderson,Nashville,Tennessee,ProSe. 8!  KevinS.Key,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,VanderbiltUniversity. #`" T  OPINION #IXX #XXI $8 $ #IXXG #  XXI@) I.  &"&   PamelaHendersonenrolledatPeabodyCollegeduringthemid1970s.Tohelpfinanceher (#( education,sheobtaineda$2,500loanundertheNationalDirectStudentLoanprogram( NDSL )$) program)and,inSeptember1974,executeda$2,500promissorynotepayabletoPeabodyCollege. p*%* Inthefallof1975,Ms.HendersontransferredtoTennesseeStateUniversitywheresheremained \+&+ untiltheendofthefallsemesterin1977.Afteratwoyearhiatus,Ms.Hendersonreenrolledat H,',  PeabodyCollegeinthefallof1979.Bythattime,PeabodyCollegehadbecomepartofVanderbilt 4-(- University.InAugust1979,Ms.Hendersonobtainedasecond$2,500NDSLloanandexecuteda  promissorynotepayabletoVanderbiltUniversity.     ApparentlyMs.Hendersondidnotcontinuetopursueherstudiesonafulltimebasis.She t didnotgraduatefromPeabodyCollegeuntilDecember1990.Shebeganrepayinghertwostudent ` loansinOctober1992.Ms.HendersonfailedtomakeherAugust1993installmentpaymentbut L  resumedrepayingtheloansthefollowingmonth.SheagainstoppedmakingherpaymentsinAugust 8  1996butpickedbackupagaininApril1997.Finally,inOctober1997,Ms.Hendersonstopped $ t repayingherstudentloansaltogetherbecauseshehaddecidedthatshehadrepaidtheseloans infull  ` overtheyears.  L    VanderbiltUniversityattemptedtoresolvethematterinformally.WhenMs.Henderson $  rebuffeditsovertures,VanderbiltUniversityfiledsuitagainstMs.HendersonintheDavidson   CountyGeneralSessionsCourtseekingthecombinedbalancedueonthetwoNDSLnotes,accrued   interest,collectioncosts,andattorneysfees.OnNovember9,1993,afteradditionaleffortsto   resolvethedisputefailed,VanderbiltUniversityobtaineda$9,056.43defaultjudgment.Ms.   HendersonappealedtotheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCountywhere,onJune22,1998,Vanderbilt p receiveda$5,051.56judgment.InaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.262216(2000),thetrial \ courtdirectedMs.HendersontopayVanderbiltUniversity$100permonthuntilthejudgmentwas H paidinfull.Ms.Henderson,whohasrepresentedherselfthroughouttheseproceedings,has 4 appealed.  p @) II.  H @hh TheStandardofReview  4   Weturnfirsttotheproperstandardsofreviewfortheissuespresentedinthisappeal.   Becausethisisanappealfromadecisionmadebythetrialcourtitselffollowingabenchtrial,the  nowfamiliarstandardinTenn.R.App.P.13(d)governsourreview.Thisrulecontainsdifferent  standardsforreviewingatrialcourtsdecisionsregardingfactualquestionsandlegalquestions.    Withregardtoatrialcourtsfindingsoffact,wewillreviewtherecorddenovoandwill X  presumethatthefindingsoffactarecorrect unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise. D! Wewillalsogivegreatweighttoatrialcourtsfactualfindingsthatrestondeterminationsof 0"  credibility.InreEstateofWalton,950S.W.2d956,959(Tenn.1997);B&GConstr.,Inc.v.Polk, #l! 37S.W.3d462,465(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).However,ifthetrialjudgehasnotmadeaspecific $X" findingoffactonaparticularmatter,wereviewtherecordtodeterminewherethepreponderance $D # oftheevidencelieswithoutemployingapresumptionofcorrectness.Ganzevoortv.Russell,949 %0!$ S.W.2d293,296(Tenn.1997). &"%   Tenn.R.App.P.13(d)spresumptionofcorrectnessrequiresappellatecourtstodefertoa (#' trialcourt'sfindingsoffact.Fellv.Rambo,36S.W.3d837,846(Tenn.Ct.App.2000);Taylorv. )$( TransAeroCorp.,924S.W.2d109,112(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Becauseofthepresumption,an |*%) appellatecourtisboundtoleaveatrialcourt'sfindingoffactundisturbedunlessitdeterminesthat h+&* theaggregateweightoftheevidencedemonstratesthatafindingoffactotherthantheonefoundby T,'+ thetrialcourtismoreprobablytrue.EstateofHaynesv.Braden,835S.W.2d19,20(Tenn.Ct.App.  1992)(holdingthatanappellatecourtisboundtorespectatrialcourt'sfindingsifitcannot  determinethattheevidencepreponderatesotherwise).Thus,fortheevidencetopreponderateagainst  atrialcourt'sfindingoffact,itmustsupportanotherfindingoffactwithgreaterconvincingeffect. t   ThepresumptionofcorrectnessinTenn.R.App.P.13(d)appliesonlytofindingsoffact,not L  toconclusionsoflaw.Accordingly,appellatecourtsreviewatrialcourtsresolutionoflegalissues 8  withoutapresumptionofcorrectnessandreachtheirownindependentconclusionsregardingthese $ t issues.Johnsonv.Johnson,37S.W.3d892,894(Tenn.2001);Nuttv.ChampionIntlCorp.,980  ` S.W.2d365,367(Tenn.1998);Hicksv.Cox,978S.W.2d544,547(Tenn.Ct.App.1998);  L  McCormickv.Aabakus,Inc.,___S.W.3d___,___,2000WL1473915,at*1(Tenn.Sp.Workers  8  Comp.Panel2000). $  @^^( III.    @ Ms.HendersonsFairDebtCollectionPracticesActClaim      Ms.HendersonclaimsthatVanderbiltUniversitywasnotentitledtoajudgmentagainsther p becauseitviolatedthefederalFairDebtCollectionPracticesAct.WhilethisActprohibitscertain \ debtcollectionpracticesandpermitsdebtorstorecovermonetarydamagesforviolationsofits H provisions,wehavedeterminedthatMs.Hendersonhasnoteffectivelyassertedaclaimbasedon 4 theActinthisproceeding.  p   NomentionwasmadeoftheActuntilMs.Hendersonsclosingargumentinthetrialcourt. H Atthattime,andagaininherappellatebriefs,Ms.Hendersonhasfailedtoexplainwithany 4 specificityhowVanderbiltUniversityviolatedtheAct.3 #  1      ׀Thiscourthasappellatejurisdictiononly.   Tenn.CodeAnn.164108(a)(1)(1994).Asaprudentialmatter,wewillnotaddressclaimsfor   reliefthathavenotbeenproperlypresentedtothetrialcourt.DeLaneyv.Thompson,982S.W.2d  857,861(Tenn.1998);Greenv.InnovativeRecoveryServs.,Inc.,42S.W.3d917,919(Tenn.Ct.  App.2000).BecauseMs.Hendersonneitherpleadednorpresentedevidenceattrialregarding  VanderbiltUniversitysallegedviolationsoftheFairDebtCollectionPracticesAct,shecannotuse l herclaimsthatVanderbiltUniversityviolatedtheActtoobtainreliefonappeal. X  @dd) IV.  0"  @  VanderbiltUniversitysComplianceWithNDSLAdministration #l! @LLandCollectionRequirements  $X"   Ms.HendersonalsoassertsthatVanderbiltUniversityisnotentitledtoajudgmentagainst %0!$  herbecauseitdidnotadheretothefederalproceduresandrequirementsgoverningtheNDSL &"% program.4 #  2      ׀Thesestatutesandregulationsrequireparticipatingcollegesanduniversities tomeetthe   standardsofduediligenceinthecollectionoftheloans....,20U.S.C.A.1080(a)(West2000);  34C.F.R.674.41(a)(2000)andprovidethatcollegesanduniversitiesthatdonotmeetthese  standardsmayberemovedfromtheprogram.20U.S.C.A.1080(d),(h)(1). t   Ms.Hendersoncannotusethestatutesandregulationsgoverningtheadministrationofthe L  NDSLprogramtodefendagainstVanderbiltUniversityscollectionefforts.Thesestatutesand 8  regulationsexistforthefederalgovernmentsbenefit,notforthebenefitofthestudents.United $ t Statesv.Smith,862F.Supp.257,262(D.Haw.1994).Theycreatenoprivaterightofactionforthe  ` borrowers,Morganv.MarkerdowneCorp.,976F.Supp.301,319(D.N.J.1997);nordothey  L  providestudentborrowerswithabasistoavoidrepayingtheirdebts.UnitedStatesv.Dwelley,59  8  F.Supp.2d115,119(D.Me.1999);UnitedStatesv.Singer,943F.Supp.9,12(D.D.C.1996),affd $  inpart,revdinpartonothergrounds,132F.3d1482(D.C.Cir.1997);UnitedStatesv.Smith,862   F.Supp.at262.     Inlightofthedecisionsregarding duediligenceargumentssimilartothoseMs.Henderson   isassertinginthiscase,wehavedeterminedthatshecannotdefendagainstVanderbiltUniversitys p collectionclaimbasedontheschoolsallegedfailurecomplywitheveryapplicableregulatory \ requirementregardingtheconductofNDSLlenders.Accordingly,thetrialcourtdidnoterrby H concludingtheseclaimedshortcomingsdidnotprovideMs.Hendersonwithgroundstorefusetopay 4 herNDSLloan.  p @) V.  H @?? Ms.HendersonsDefault  4   Ms.Hendersonalsoassertsthatthetrialcourterredbyfindingthatshehaddefaultedonher   NDSLloansbecauseshehad rehabilitatedthetwoloansaspermittedbyfederalregulation.Even  thoughMs.HendersonmayhaverehabilitatedherloansfollowingherAugust1993default,she  failedtoprovethatsherehabilitatedtheloansfollowingherdefaultsinAugust1996andOctober  1997. l   Unlikemostcommercialpromissorynotes,thetwopromissorynotesMs.Hendersonsigned D! donotexpresslydefine default.Theydo,however,containanaccelerationprovisionstatingthat 0"  shouldtheborrowerfail tomeetascheduledrepaymentofanyoftheinstallmentsdueon[the]note, #l! theentireunpaidindebtednessincludinginterest...shall,attheoptionofthelendinginstitution, $X" becomeimmediatelydueandpayable.Thedefinitionof defaultnotfoundinthenoteissupplied $D # by34C.F.R.674.2(b)(2000)whichdefinesa defaultas [t]hefailureofaborrowertomakean %0!$ installmentpaymentwhendueortocomplywithothertermsofthepromissorynoteorwritten &"% repaymentagreement. '#&  (#'   VanderbiltUniversitysbusinessrecordsestablishthatMs.Hendersondidnotmakeher  August1993installmentpayment.Thisomissionwas,beyondquestion,adefaultonbothnotes.  EventhoughshehasbeenunabletocontrovertVanderbiltUniversitysrecords,Ms.Henderson  insiststhatVanderbiltcannotbaseitscollectioneffortsonthisdefaultbecausesherehabilitatedher t loansbythereaftermakingtimelypaymentsfortwelveconsecutivemonths.@ #  3      ׀EvenifMs.Henderson ` wasentitledtohaveherloanrehabilitatedfollowingherAugust1993default,shedefaultedagain L  inAugust1996andagaininOctober1997.Herearlierrehabilitationcannotcuretheselaterdefaults. 8  Accordingly,therecordcontainsampleevidencetosupportthetrialcourtsconclusionthatMs. $ t HendersonhaddefaultedonbothofherNDSLloansbynonpayment.  ` @dd) VI.   8  @,,  TheCalculationoftheBalanceDueonMs.HendersonsNotes  $    Ms.Hendersonsmostsubstantiveargumentsinvolvethemannerinwhichthetrialcourt   determinedthebalancedueonhertwostudentloans.Sheassertsthatthetrialcourtsconclusions   thattheoutstandingprincipalonhertwoloanswas$3,776.04wasincorrectforthreereasons.First,   sheinsiststhatVanderbiltUniversityimproperlycomputedtheinterestonherloans.Second,she p insiststhatVanderbiltUniversitymisappliedthepaymentsshemadebetweenOctober1992and \ October1997.Third,sheinsiststhatshemademorepaymentsontheseloansthanthetrialcourt H gavehercreditfor.Theevidencefailstosupportanyofthesearguments. 4   Withregardtothecomputationoftheinterestonherloans,Ms.Hendersonassertsthat  \ VanderbiltUniversitybeganchargingherinterestprematurelyandcommencedherrepaymentperiod H toosoon.ShepointsoutthattheNDSLprogramrequiresthatrepaymentbedeferredandthat 4 interestnotaccruewhiletheborrowerisatleastahalftimestudent.Shealsopointsoutthatstudents   arenotrequiredtobeginrepayingtheirloansuntilninemonthsaftertheyceasetobeatleasthalf   timestudents.Unfortunately,Ms.HendersonhasfailedtodemonstratehowVanderbiltUniversitys  conductwasinconsistentwiththeseprovisions.    Ms.Hendersonrequestedseveraldefermentsofherobligationtorepayherloansonthe l groundthatshewasatleastahalftimestudent.ThesedefermentsexpiredinJune1981.When X  VanderbiltUniversityreceivednofurtherrequestsfordeferment,itbeganchargingMs.Henderson D! interestonherloansinJune1981.EventhoughMs.Hendersonmayhavestillbeeninschoolwhen 0"  VanderbiltstartedcharginginterestonherfirstNDSLnote,sheneverprovedthatshewasgoingto #l! schoolatleasthalftimeand,therefore,thatshewaseligibleforacontinuingdefermentofinterest. $X" Withoutthisevidence,herclaimthatVanderbiltUniversitycomputedtheinterestonherloans $D # improperlymustfail. %0!$   &"%   Ms.HendersonalsoinsiststhatVanderbiltUniversitymisappliedherpaymentsonhertwo   studentloans.WhileshedoesnotexplainpreciselyhowVanderbiltUniversitymisappliedher  payments,Ms.HendersonassertsthatshestoppedpayingonhertwoloansinOctober1997because  shebelievedthatshehadpaidherloansinfull.Onseveraloccasions,sheexpressedsurprisethat t theprincipalbalanceofherloanswasnotdecreasingasfastasshethoughtitshouldhave.However, ` thefactthatVanderbiltwasnotapplyingherpaymentsexclusivelytotheprincipalofherloansis L  notevidenceofwrongdoing.34C.F.R.674.33(a)(4)(2000)requiredVanderbiltUniversityto 8  applyMs.Hendersonsinstallmentpaymentsfirsttoitscollectioncosts,secondtoaccruedlate $ t charges,thirdtoaccruedinterest,andfinallytotheremainingprincipal.BecauseMs.Henderson  ` failedtopresentanyevidencethatVanderbiltUniversitydidnotapplyherpaymentsinaccordance  L  with34C.F.R.674.33(a)(4),thetrialcourtproperlydisregardedherclaimthatVanderbilthad  8  misappliedthepaymentsshehadmadeonherNDSLloans. $    Finally,Ms.Hendersoninsiststhatthetrialcourtshouldhavegivenhercreditfor$7,590in   paymentsonhertwonotesratherthan$5,415.06.TheonlyevidenceregardingMs.Hendersons   paymentsintroducedattrialwerethestudentloanrecordsintroducedbyVanderbiltUniversity.Ms.   HendersondidnotoffercancelledchecksorreceiptstocontradictVanderbiltUniversitysrecords. p Accordingly,thetrialcourtbaseditscalculationsonVanderbiltUniversitysrecordsafterexpressly \ findingthatMs.Hendersonsuncorroboratedtestimonyregardingthepaymentsonherloanswasnot H credible.Wedeclinetosecondguessthetrialcourtscredibilitydeterminationortoholdthetrial 4 courtinerrorforbasingitscalculationsontheonlyevidenceintherecord.; #  4      ׀  p @==( VII.  H @ TheJudgmentforVanderbiltUniversitysCollectionCosts  4   DespitetheprovisioninthepromissorynotesobligatinghertopayVanderbiltUniversity all   attorneysfeesandothercostsandchargesnecessaryforthecollectionofanyamountnotpaidwhen  due,Ms.HendersonarguesthatthetrialcourterredbyawardingVanderbiltUniversity$1,200in  attorneysfeesandcollectioncosts.Sheinsiststhatthesecostsare farbeyondthelimitofwhatis  permissiblebytheHigherEducationActprovisions....Ms.Hendersonsrelianceonthefederal l regulationsgoverningNDSLloansismisplaced. X    TheapplicablefederalregulationsauthorizeeducationallenderssuchasVanderbilttosue 0"  defaultingstudentborrowerssuchasMs.Henderson. #  5      ׀Lenderswhodoso shallassessagainstand #l! attempttorecoverfromtheborroweralllitigationcosts,includingattorneysfees,courtcosts,and $X" otherrelatedcosts,totheextentpermittedunderapplicablelaw....34C.F.R.674.46(b)(1),  674.47(b).Iftheeducationallenderfailstorecoupallofitscollectioncostsfromthedefaulting  studentborrower,theeducationallendermayseekreimbursementoftheunpaidcostsfromthe  federalgovernment.However,theregulationscaptheamountofreimbursementaneducational t lendermayobtainfromthefederalgovernment.5 #  6       `   TheregulationsuponwhichMs.Hendersonbasesherargumentthatthejudgmentfor 8  VanderbiltUniversityscollectioncostsistoohighdonotapplytoVanderbiltUniversityssuit $ t againsther.TheycomeintoplayonlyifVanderbiltundertakestochargebackanyofherloanorits  ` collectioncostsagainstthefederalgovernment.Accordingly,Ms.Hendersonsargumentthatthe  L  federalregulationsdonotpermitthecollectioncostsawardedinthiscaseiswithoutmerit.  8  @( VIII.      Weaffirmthejudgmentandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforwhateverfurther   proceedingsmayberequired.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoPamelaHendersonforwhich   execution,ifnecessary,mayissue. p    `     h     _____________________________  p    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE