Law Grad's $221K Loan Discharge Has Bankruptcy Bar Buzzing
A decision by the chief bankruptcy judge of New York's Southern District is throwing cold water on the conventional wisdom that student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, and it could influence how other judges determine whether borrowers face undue hardships.
January 09, 2020 at 05:15 PM
5 minute read
Did a 2004 Cardozo law graduate-turned hiking guide just make it significantly easier for other J.D.s drowning in debt to discharge their student loans?
Stay tuned.
Bankruptcy experts are buzzing over an unusual decision issued Jan. 7 by Chief Judge Cecelia Morris of U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York that enables law grad Kevin Jared Rosenberg to discharge the $221,000 loan debt he acquired as an undergraduate at the University of Arizona and later at the Cardozo School of Law. The win by Rosenberg, who represented himself in the matter, flies in the face of conventional wisdom that says student loan debt is all but impossible to shed in bankruptcy.
It's the bankruptcy judge's application of the so-called "Brunner test"—which lays out the three criteria student loan borrowers must meet to demonstrate that repaying their loans poses an undue hardship—that has caught the attention of the bankruptcy law world. Morris' opinion includes a strongly worded rebuke of how judges have traditionally applied the Brunner test, saying they have made it more onerous on borrowers than it was intended to be.
"Over the past 32 years, many cases have pinned on Brunner punitive standards that are not contained therein," Morris wrote. "Those retributive dicta were then applied and reapplied so frequently in the context of Brunner that they have subsumed the actual language of the Brunner test. They have become a quasi-standard of mythic proportions so much so that most people (bankruptcy professionals as well as lay individuals) believe it impossible to discharge student loans."
Jason Iuliano, a professor at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law who has been studying student loan discharges since 2010, said he's not surprised that Morris sided with Rosenberg. His research shows that about 40% of the borrowers who ask a judge to determine that they meet the undue hardship criteria and discharge their student loans are successful. That's despite the widespread belief that such requests are almost always denied in court. (Of note is that a mere 400 to 500 borrowers a year ask a judge for a discharge, out of the approximately 250,000 student loan borrowers who declare bankruptcy annually.)
Even so, Iuliano said Morris' rebuke of how the Brunner test has historically been applied was unusual.
"It's the first time I've seen a judge call out the undue hardship standard so forcefully and attack the idea that the test is so burdensome," Iuliano said. "Even other judges who were granting discharges were finding ways to not call out the test this explicitly, and to fit [their opinions] within the existing standard."
To meet the Brunner test, borrowers must demonstrate that their current income does not enable them to maintain a "minimal" standard of living while repaying their loans, that their financial situation is likely to persist for a "significant portion" of their repayment period, and that they have made good faith efforts to repay their loans.
Matthew Bruckner, a professor at Howard University School of Law and a bankruptcy expert, said Morris' application of the second two prongs of the test in the Rosenberg case are somewhat unusual. Rosenberg claimed in court that his annual income as an outdoor guide is $37,000 and that he has a negative monthly outlay of $1,500. But Morris did not consider any potential increase in his earnings on the grounds that the entirety of his $221,000 loan balance is due because he went into default. Judges typically take a 10 or 25-year view of earnings based on the length of the repayment plan.
Similarly, Morris declined to use Rosenberg's decision not to pursue a legal career—he practiced law for just a few months after graduating from Cardozo—as evidence that he has not made a good faith effort to repay his loans.
"Right now, he can't repay," Bruckner said. "But he's got a law degree. What if he decided he wanted to be an associate at Wachtell and they would hire him? Then his income would spike. She doesn't hold against him his failure to be working as a lawyer, whereas lots of other judges have."
In finding that Rosenberg made a good faith effort to repay his loans, Morris credits him with making about 40% of his required loan payments, even though he was only required to make 26 payments over the course of 13 years due to securing multiple loan deferrals, Bruckner noted.
"There is some view—I don't know how well informed—that judges are increasingly eager for a different way of thinking about student loan discharge," Bruckner said. "In that case, Morris' decision could point them to a path forward that they can square themselves with intellectually."
But whether Rosenberg's case has any larger legal ramifications will likely boil down to whether Morris' decision is upheld on appeal. If the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sides with Morris, for example, that could open to door for more borrowers to see their loans discharged, Iuliano said.
For now, the biggest impact of the case may well be raising awareness among the bankruptcy bar that student loans are, in fact, dischargeable, he said.
"The important upshot of the case is that it's getting attention and bringing it to the knowledge of attorneys that, 'Hey, student loan debt is dischargeable,'" Iuliano said. "So many attorneys that I talk to think it's categorically non-dischargeable, and that's the advice they give their clients."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Are Turning to Online Training Platforms as Apprenticeship Model Falters
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readClass Action Lawsuit Targets 40 Private Colleges and Universities Over Alleged Price-Fixing
3 minute readEx-St. Thomas Univ. Law Professor Sues School Over Firing, Alleging Defamation
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250