Thanks for clarifying that; I intended that my parents sue.
Otherwise -and I'm speaking primarily to and about Scott67's post- I'm surprised I have to spell this out on a law forum; however, it's tactless to make such statements based on legal questions.
Scott, you seem to assume in my character flaws by my asking about all of my legal options, and then you carry on about morals, yet, you seem to take no moral issue with the technicality that allowed the bank to bypass standard legal garnishment protocol made specifically to protect borrowers, (let alone students indebted for tens of thousands of dollars, and disabled chronically ill senior citizens) from creditor abuse? Very interesting.
The reason such laws are in place is to keep both the borrowers and the lenders 'in check.' As for the the bank's exploitation of the fact that my parents 'just so happened to have a bank account with them', despite the loan being a student loan (and wouldn't have gotten approved otherwise), it's TECHNICALLY classified as a 'private loan,' which leaves room to exploit loopholes and different statutes of limitation, then that's where I see 'moral' shortcoming.
I never refused to pay the bank; I missed a couple of payments so that I can make a security deposit on a 2-bedroom to accommodate our newborn to avoid being evicted by my landlord upon a lease expiration (again I'm trying to save you my life's story).
Despite the Acceleration Clause that gives the bank the right to request the full loan amount of $29K immediately in a lump sum, no judge would grant such a motion. If you can call the 2-3 payments that I missed negligence, the judge would probably grant reasonable monthly payments, and in the worst case scenario a direct 10-20% garnishment of my wages and my parents' wages and assets. ...so please spare me the morality speech; I'm all about 'doing the right thing' and giving every one -including banks - their due right. I'm not looking for your version of 'moral enlightenment'; I'm looking for tactful legal advice given the present circumstances.
That being said, I think we maybe jumping to conclusions, and overlooking a few key points that are worth investigating:
1. The context of the checking/savings account verbiage (on which Wachovia is basing their 'right' to seize the funds without trial or judgment).
2. The fact that this is indeed a student loan, and may still fall under obligatory consolidation and rehabilitation programs.
PS I'm working with a national news channel and things are in motion to bring this public (and I mean prime-time public) mainstream media. Frankly, I was surprised to get called back so quickly.

