SERVING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Los Angeles California Bankruptcy Attorney - Only $999 - Chapter 7
FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO GET STARTED, CALL OR EMAIL US TODAY!
LAW OFFICE OF CHIRNESE L. LIVERPOOL
6277 VAN NUYS BOULEVARD, SUITE 126
VAN NUYS, CALIFORNIA 91401
TEL: (818) 714-2200
FAX: (818) 714-2201
Student loans (also known as "educational loans") are not discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding unless the bankruptcy judge determines that payment of the debt “will impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtors dependents.” 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(8).
Courts use different tests to evaluate whether a particular borrower has shown an undue hardship. A common test is the Brunner test which requires a showing that 1) the debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a “minimal” standard of living for the debtor and the debtor’s dependents if forced to repay the student loans; 2) additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans; and 3) the debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans. (Brunner v. New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F. 2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987). Not all courts use this test. Some courts will be more flexible.
Whether a student loan is discharged based on hardship is not automatically determined in a bankruptcy proceeding. The debtor must file an adversary complaint in the bankruptcy proceeding to obtain a determination regarding the dischargeability of the student loan. A copy of the complaint must be served on the student loan creditor. It is up to the bankruptcy court to determine whether a particular individual meets the “undue hardship” standard that is required to discharge a student loan. Here are a few examples of successful and unsuccessful student loan cases:
● A 58 year old I.R.S. employee making about $38,000/year was able to get his student loans discharged. He had taken out the loans to attend a chiropractic program which he never completed. His overall expenses were about equal to his income. He was able to show that it was unlikely that his income would increase until his planned retirement at age 65. He was single with no dependents and had health problems. The court found that he had acted in good faith even though he had never made any voluntary student loan payments.
● A college-educated married couple proved undue hardship and were able to discharge their student loans. They both worked, but had income barely above poverty level. The court noted that the borrowers worked in worthwhile, although low-paying careers. One worked as a teacher’s aide and the other as a teacher working with emotionally disturbed children. Even with a very frugal budget, they had $400 more a month in expenses than income. Their expenses included $100 monthly tuition to send their daughter to private school. Relatives paid for most of this and the couple testified that they objected to the public school’s corporeal punishment policy. In agreeing to discharge the loans, the court also found that the couple had acted in good faith because they asked about the possibility of a more affordable repayment plan.
● Not all courts are as sympathetic to borrowers who work in low-paying careers. For example, one borrower was denied a discharge because he worked as a cellist for an orchestra and taught music part-time. The court suggested that this borrower could find higher-paying work. Another court came up with the same result for a pastor. The court found that it was the borrower’s choice to work as a pastor for a start-up church rather than try to find a higher paying job.
● A number of courts have granted discharges in cases where the borrower did not benefit from the education or went to a fraudulent school.
● There have been mixed results when borrowers have tried to show that their financial difficulties will persist into the future. For example, one court found that a borrower’s alcoholism was not an insurmountable problem, but some borrowers have won these cases. In one case, a borrower’s testimony about her mental impairment, including evidence that she received Social Security benefits, was enough to convince the court of undue hardship. The court agreed with the borrower that her ongoing mental illness was likely to continue to interfere with her ability to work.