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This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllTopping Kirkland, Weil Won the Most Valuable Major Bankruptcy Retentions of 2024
Beyond Bordeaux’s Bankruptcy: A Lesson In Adapting to the Evolving Sports Media Landscape
6 minute readUS Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
4 minute readCleary vs. White & Case: NY Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How ‘Bilateral Tapping’ Can Help with Stress and Anxiety
- 2How Law Firms Can Make Business Services a Performance Champion
- 3'Digital Mindset': Hogan Lovells' New Global Managing Partner for Digitalization
- 4Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Has New York Sentence Pardoned by Trump
- 5Settlement Allows Spouses of U.S. Citizens to Reopen Removal Proceedings
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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