By Hon. Brian Lynch, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Western District of Washington, Tacoma Division When the Supreme Court issued United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa1 on March 23, 2010, commentators were perplexed.2 On the one hand, the Court upheld the 9th Circuit’s ruling allowing a hardship discharge of student loans in a chapter 13 plan. The Court held that...
From the Editor
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By Wm. Houston Brown, United States Bankruptcy Judge (Retired)
Discharge - Paying more than original loan balance would be undue hardship. The 59-year old debtor employed in aging and disability services couldn’t maintain a minimal living standard without discharge of substantial portion of student loan debt. The Court identified factors included in “minimal standards” in modern American society and found that it would be an undue hardship for the debtor to pay the full loan with accruing interest. If she paid the minimum income-based payment of $203 monthly, with accruing 9% interest, she would . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or sign in below:
Related Articles
Bartenwerfer: Willful and Malicious Injuries?
Creditors’ Rights and Debtors’ Protections at the Intersection of Consumer Bankruptcy and UCC Article 9 – Part IV
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa Ten Years After
Critical Case Comment
The Hanging Paragraph – Hanging on Every Word Part 2 of 4
Critical Case Comment–Be Careful What You Stipulate
Memorial Day 2023
Possible Solution for Student Loans?
Evidentiary Issues Arising from Attempts to Prove Alleged “Facts” Stated in The Monster Mash
Critical Case Comment – Pay the TAXES!