By William H. Brown, Adviser to The Academy d/b/a ConsiderChapter13.org In the most recent opinion on the issue, as of this writing, the Court in In re Rivera, 2019 WL 1430273 (Bankr. D. Ariz. Mar. 28, 2019), in perhaps still a minority view, concluded that debtors’ default in making all direct postpetition mortgage payments was not a failure to complete...
Questioning Brunner’s Validity
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By William H. Brown, Adviser, Academy for Consumer Bankruptcy Education
The Brunner test of undue hardship
Under Brunner v. N.Y. State Higher Educ. Services Corp. (In re Brunner), 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987), to prove undue hardship for purposes of discharge under § 523(a)(8), the debtor must carry the burden of proof that (1) the debtor cannot maintain a minimal standard of living for himself or herself and dependents, based on current income and expenses, if required to continue repayment of the student loan; (2) circumstances indicate that . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or sign in below:
Related Articles
Kellner Retires
“Postmarked” Redefined
Are Direct Payments by Debtor on Mortgage Considered Payments “Under the Plan” for Purposes of Discharge?
NCLC Seeks Signers Urging Foreclosure Pause When HAF Applied For
An Open Thank You Letter to NACTT – Reflections from a New(er) Trustee: My First Two Years
Critical Case Comment – Relief from Stay, Check; But Better Act Fast
Take Back Your Time and Stop Letting Clients Run Your Life
Critical Case Comment – Sec. 328 vs. Sec. 327 Not Exactly a Smack Down
2019 Legislation Affecting Bankruptcy Practice
Certiorai Denied in Evans and Doll