Newman v. Education Credit Management Corp. (In Re Newman)
2002 WL 32311459, 304 B.R. 188 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Student loan obligations are dischargeable in bankruptcy only if the debtor demonstrates "undue hardship" by satisfying all three prongs of the Brunner test, which requires proving a minimal standard of living cannot be maintained, that this financial state will persist, and that good faith efforts to repay have been made. Whether these prongs are met is a fact-intensive inquiry, generally unsuitable for summary judgment when material facts remain in dispute.
Facts:
- Tawandalaia Newman incurred $19,281.72 in federally secured student loans to attend Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, but she did not complete her pharmacology degree.
- Newman's current total gross monthly income is approximately $1517.40, which includes earnings, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits for her son, and Food Stamps, placing her below the federal poverty level.
- Newman has five children, one of whom, DaiQuan Newman, suffers from Denny’s-Drash Syndrome and kidney failure, requiring significant care and receiving SSI benefits.
- Newman's average monthly expenses total $2057, exceeding her income, and she is currently not making payments on her second mortgage.
- In 1999, Newman faced foreclosure on her home and took out a loan through the Homeowner’s Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (HE-MAP) to prevent it.
- Newman has been diagnosed with fibromyalgia.
- Newman applied for and received many deferments and forbearance periods for her student loans to avoid default, but she has been told she is no longer eligible for more.
- Newman has changed jobs multiple times in an attempt to secure better wages and benefits, and her income has not significantly increased.
Procedural Posture:
- Tawandalaia M. Newman filed an adversary proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a determination that her student loan obligations were dischargeable.
- Education Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) filed an answer in opposition to Newman's proceeding.
- ECMC filed a motion for summary judgment, relying on Newman's answers to interrogatories and certain documents.
- Newman filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, relying primarily on two affidavits.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the evidence presented by either a debtor or a student loan creditor on cross-motions for summary judgment establish an absence of genuine disputes of material fact, thereby allowing a court to determine as a matter of law whether student loan obligations impose an "undue hardship" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and the Brunner test?
Opinions:
Majority - Bruce I. Fox, Chief Judge
No, neither motion for summary judgment can be granted because there remain material facts in dispute regarding whether Tawandalaia Newman's student loan obligations impose an "undue hardship" under the Brunner test. The Third Circuit, in In re Faish, 72 F.3d 298 (3d Cir.1995), adopted the three-part Brunner test, which requires a debtor to prove: (1) an inability to maintain a minimal standard of living if forced to repay; (2) additional circumstances indicating this state of affairs will persist; and (3) good faith efforts to repay the loans. The debtor bears the burden of persuasion on all three elements, and all must be satisfied. Education Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) argued that Newman's financial condition is likely to improve, and that her failure to apply for an income contingent repayment plan demonstrated a lack of good faith. However, Newman's affidavit challenged ECMC's assertions regarding future expenses and co-obligor assistance. The court found that while repayment options are a factor in assessing good faith, the availability of an income contingent repayment plan alone does not, as a matter of law, negate a finding of undue hardship, especially given that its potential "discharge" at the end of 25 years could be considered taxable income, thus exchanging one non-dischargeable debt for another. Similarly, Newman, as the party bearing the burden of proof, failed to demonstrate that the undisputed evidence was so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could rule against her on any of the Brunner elements, citing In re Saburah, 136 B.R. 246 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1992). The court noted that a reasonable fact finder could question her present and future expenses and income, the availability of income supplements, her health, age, and the impact of the income contingent repayment option. Therefore, material facts remain in dispute, precluding summary judgment for either party.
Analysis:
This case underscores the fact-intensive nature of the "undue hardship" inquiry for student loan discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). It reinforces that summary judgment is rarely appropriate in such cases, as genuine issues of material fact regarding a debtor's financial prospects, medical conditions, and good faith efforts almost always exist. The decision clarifies that the mere availability of alternative repayment plans, such as an income contingent repayment plan, does not automatically defeat a claim of undue hardship, emphasizing that courts must consider the totality of circumstances, including the potential tax implications of such plans.
