270 likes | 447 Views
Student Loans in Bankruptcy 2014 NCHER Fall Legal Meeting September 26, 2014 - Washington , DC. Presented by: Alane A. Becket Becket & Lee, LLP Malvern, PA abecket@becket-lee.com. Legal Issues in Bankruptcy. Undue hardship litigation Student loans in Chapter 13
E N D
Student Loans inBankruptcy2014 NCHER Fall Legal Meeting September 26, 2014 - Washington, DC Presented by: Alane A. Becket Becket & Lee, LLP Malvern, PA abecket@becket-lee.com
Legal Issues in Bankruptcy • Undue hardship litigation • Student loans in Chapter 13 • Proposed Plan Form for Chapter 13 • Proposed deadline for POCs • Effect of Claim objections
Evolution of Non-Dischargeability • 1976: Discharge of student loans in bankruptcy prohibited for first 5 years of repayment unless debtor could establish undue hardship. • 1990: Discharge exception extended to 7 years. • 1998: Code amended to provide that federally guaranteed student loans could not be discharged at all absent showing of undue hardship. • 2005: discharge exception extended to all education loans.
Statutory Authority 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8): adischarge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt: (8) unless excepting such debt from discharge under this paragraph would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents, for – (A) (i)an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution; or (ii) an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend; or (B)any other educational loan that is a qualified education loan, as defined in section 221(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, incurred by a debtor who is an individual …
Burdens • Lender: must establish the existence of the debt and that it is in one of the non-dischargeable categories • Educational nature: based upon “substance of the transaction”, i.e., the stated purpose of the loan, not how proceeds were actually used • Debtor: must prove undue hardship
Brunner Test for Undue Hardship • Brunner v. New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1987) • the debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a “minimal” standard of living for herself and her dependents if forced to repay the loans; • 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 • that the debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans.
A Minimal Standard of Living • Shelter • Basic utilities • Food and personal products • Vehicles and associated costs • Health insurance • Recreation
Is the Debtor’s Financial Condition Likely to Persist? • Temporary hardship or a “certainty of hopelessness”? • Career choices and future success
Good Faith Efforts to Repay • Efforts measured by efforts to: • obtain employment • minimize expenses • maximize income • History of repayment? • Use of alternate repayment options
Erosion of Brunner • Brunner v. New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1987) • Filed bankruptcy 7 months after receiving her Masters degree • 2 months later, after expiration of 9 month grace period, sought discharge of student loans • Made no attempt to pay whatsoever • Only proved that she was currently unable to meet her expenses • Court found her skilled, capable and without dependents • NB: state of law when Brunner was decided – non-dischargeable for the first 5 years absent undue hardship
Erosion of Brunner (contd.) • Krieger v. Educational Credit Management Corp., 713 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2013) • Debtor lived in a rural area with her 75-year-old mother. Her only income was government assistance and she had applied for 200 jobs over ten years without success. • The bankruptcy court found that the Debtor had made a good faith effort to repay her loans, even though she had not applied for a federal repayment plan. Under such a repayment plan, her payments would have been zero and her loan discharged after 25 years.
Erosion of Brunner (contd.) • Hedlund v. Educational Resources Institute Inc., 718 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2013) • The Ninth Circuit cited the Debtor’s efforts to obtain employment, maximize income, and minimize his expenses. • A spouse’s unwillingness to work full time cannot count against the good faith of the borrower • Discharging only a portion of the student loans is possible • Expenses that are more than bare bones (for example, for cell phones and cable service) do not necessarily indicate a lack of good faith, as long as they are a marginal part of the borrower’s overall financial picture, and • A borrower can show a good faith attempt to repay even with less-than-diligent efforts to explore repayment options.
Erosion of Brunner (contd.) • Roth v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Roth), 490 B.R. 908 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2013) • Debtor’s failure to enroll in the income based repayment plan, attempt a disability discharge or any other workout was not an indicator of bad faith • Lack of payment is not dispositive when debtor does not have means to pay, even if IBRP would require $0 payment • NB: Concurring opinion which recommends the totality of the circumstances be adopted
Selected Issues in Hardship Litigation • Quality of education, school closings • Partial discharge • Proof of medical conditions • Timing of litigation in Chapter 13 cases • Effect of claim disallowance • Alternate means to discharge
Procedural Issues in Undue Hardship Litigation – AP required? • A judicial determination of undue hardship is required - 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) • Fed. Rule Bankr. P. 7001(6) • Makes actions to determine the dischargeability of debt adversary proceedings and requires a summons and complaint be served on the non-moving party
Procedural Issues in Undue Hardship Litigation – AP required? (contd.) • Effect of a provision in a confirmed plan purporting to discharge otherwise non-dischargeable student loan debt. Can confirmation be voided? Is the creditor entitled to any relief? • In re Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010) • Summons and complaint: No • Hearing: No • Judicial determination of undue hardship: No • Notice: Yes
Procedural Issues in Undue Hardship Litigation – AP required? (contd.) • Legal errors are corrected on appeal • A confirmation order is binding despite legal error; however, “…[T]he Code makes plain that bankruptcy courts have the authority--indeed, the obligation--to direct a debtor to conform his plan to the requirements of §§ 1328(a)(2) and 523(a)(8). … We acknowledge the potential for bad-faith litigation tactics. But expanding the availability of relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is not an appropriate prophylaxis.”
Procedural Issues in Undue Hardship Litigation – Timing of AP • When is an undue hardship AP ripe? • Statutory text • Chapter 13 vs. Chapter 7 • Early in a case, a discharge is remote and speculative • Until a Chapter 13 discharge has occurred or is imminent, is there a case or controversy relating to discharge that a bankruptcy court may decide? • Change in circumstances – relevant time for examination • Is feasibility of a plan relevant? • Debtor’s counsel considerations
Payment of Student Loans in Chapter 13 • Student loan repayment as a special circumstance to rebut the presumption of abuse or as a deduction • Separate classification of student loans • Payment as long term debt via 1322(b)(5) vs • Separate classification via 1322(b)(5) and (10) • In re Leser, 939 F.2d 669 (8th Cir 1991) • The discrimination has a reasonable basis • The debtor can carry out a plan without the discrimination • The discrimination is proposed in good faith • The degree of discrimination is directly related to the basis or rationale for the discrimination
The Proposed Changes to Bankruptcy Rules Rule 3002(c): Proof of claim bar date From: 90 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors To: 60 days after the order for relief or conversion to chapter 12 or 13
Effect of an Objection to a Student Lender’s POC • Disallowance from payment through the estate vs. a decision on the merits • Substantive vs. non-substantive objections • Disallowance by default and proposed orders • Hann v. ECMC, 711 F.3d 235 (1st Cir. 2013) • In re Crawford
Statute of Limitations Stanley CRAWFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LVNV FUNDING, LLC, et al., Defendants - Appellees.No. 13-12389UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13221 July 10, 2014 A Proof of Claim filed for a debt on which the statute of limitations has passed is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Implications of Crawford • Applies only in 11th Circuit • Applies only to “debt collectors” subject to the FDCPA • Suit can be brought in bankruptcy court or federal district court • FDPCA has a one year SOL
Alane A. Becket Becket & Lee LLP Malvern, PA abecket@becket-lee.com