Private Student Loan Debt and the Exception to Discharge As Viewed Through the Eyes of the Circuit Courts
A summary of the factors that courts have considered and will likely continue to consider when addressing dischargeability of private student loans under the Bankruptcy Code, and a cautionary word for practitioners considering whether to put forth an argument to the contrary.
May 10, 2022 at 10:30 AM
18 minute read
Sections 727 and 1328 of the Bankruptcy Code operate as a permanent injunction against creditors seeking to collect against debts that have been discharged in bankruptcy. Not all debts, however, are dischargeable. Section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code enumerates 19 exceptions of debts from the discharge granted to an individual debtor. One such exception is contained in subsection 523(a)(8)(A)(ii). In relevant part, subsection 523(a)(8)(A)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that "a discharge under section 727 … or 1328(b) … does not discharge an individual from any debt … for — an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit …." Subsection 523(a)(8)(A)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Code does not automatically operate to except from discharge certain private student loans.
Three Circuit Courts have examined the question of whether private educational loans constitute "an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit" within the meaning of subsection 523(a)(8)(A)(ii). Each of these Circuit Courts applied similar analyses to answer this question in the negative. See, Homaidan v. Sallie Mae, Inc., 3 F.4th 595 (2d Cir. 2021); McDaniel v. Navient Sols., LLC (In re McDaniel), 973 F.3d 1083 (10th Cir. 2020); Crocker v. Navient Sols., LLC (In re Crocker), 941 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2019).
This content has been archived.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 AllHaynes Boone, Hicks Thomas Get Dismissal of $1.3B Claims in 2022 Freeport LNG Terminal Explosion
3 minute readDavis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
Court Rules Mere Conduit Defense Not Suitable for a Motion to Dismiss
6 minute readFTX Estate Seeks to Recoup $1.76B From Binance, Plus Exec 'Piggy Bank' Payouts
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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