Nov. 4, 2020

A Changing Tide in the Bankruptcy Discharge of Certain Student Loan Debt

As Published in THE DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW

On Aug. 31, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued its opinion in In re McDaniel, Case No. 18-1445, representing a significant departure from the generalized belief that student loan debts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, and which, if followed by other circuit courts, could have a dramatic impact on bankruptcy law and its current practice.

The McDaniels filed a voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, and disclosed, among other debts, that they had federally insured student loans, as well as a number of private student loans with Sallie Mae, Inc. (now Navient). Throughout the course of their Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the McDaniels paid nearly $27,000 in principal toward the $200,000 that they owed to Navient.  Upon completion of their plan payments, the bankruptcy court issued an order granting the McDaniels a discharge of their debts, but did not specify which debts were or were not discharged.  As to the student loans, the order simply stated that “debts for most student loans” were not discharged.

In the two years following their discharge, the McDaniels paid an additional $37,000 to Navient toward satisfaction of their private student loans. That ended, however, when the McDaniels reopened their bankruptcy case and filed a complaint against Navient seeking a declaration by the bankruptcy court that their Navient loans had been discharged, and sought an award of damages based upon Navient’s post-discharge collection activities.

By way of background, Section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code excepts from discharge three types of educational debt: the first applies to loans made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit or made under a program funded by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution, while the third applies to educational loans that are “qualified education loans” as defined by the Internal Revenue Code.  It was undisputed that the McDaniels’ student loan debt with Navient did not qualify under the first or third exception types, so the issue was whether the private loans qualified under the second exception—namely, whether the private student loans were “obligation[s] to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend” under Section 523(a)(8)(A)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Code. 

Navient moved to dismiss the McDaniels’ complaint, making two primary arguments: that the McDaniels’ confirmed Chapter 13 plan established that the Navient loans were excepted from discharge; and that the Navient loans were obligations to repay funds received as an educational benefit. Both the bankruptcy court and the Tenth Circuit quickly denied and dispensed with Navient’s first argument, recognizing that because the discharge order did not identify which student loans were or were not discharged, the terms of the McDaniels’ Chapter 13 plan did not preclude their complaint against Navient.

Turning to Navient’s second argument, the Tenth Circuit again agreed with the bankruptcy court, holding that the McDaniels’ private student loans with Navient did not qualify as an “educational benefit” and, therefore, were not discharged as part of the McDaniels Chapter 13 bankruptcy case.

In reaching its ultimate conclusion, the Tenth Circuit was guided by two general concepts. First, exceptions to the discharge of debts in bankruptcy cases are construed narrowly and in favor the debtor, keeping in line with the overarching tenet of the Bankruptcy Code to afford the “honest but unfortunate debtor” a fresh start. 

Second, the court applied principles of statutory construction, particularly the Latin term of noscitur a sociis (statutory words are often known by the company they keep), and that when Congress uses a particular term or phrase in one section, but then does not use it in the next, such omission is intentional. Specifically, the Tenth Circuit noted that both the first and the third exceptions under Section 523(a)(8) expressly use the word “loan,” whereas the second exception does not. Had Congress intended to use the word “loan” in the second exception, the court reasoned, it certainly could have and knew how to, and the fact that Congress did not carries meaning. The McDaniel court also looked to the other items that “educational benefit” was grouped with— “scholarship” and “stipend”—concluding that the “common quality” shared among the three is that they are gifts or conditional grants of money that generally need not be repaid by their recipients. Because the Navient loans were true loans, and not conditional grants of money, they did not qualify as “obligations to repay funds received as an educational benefit” and therefore were discharged as part of the McDaniels’ bankruptcy case.

If this reasoning is followed by other bankruptcy courts and then upheld on appeal, it could trigger an avalanche of bankruptcy filings by those who have been impacted by the pandemic and have massive student debt of this nature which they will seek to discharge. It may have the unintentional consequence of either raising the cost of such borrowing (so that the lenders can hedge against the new found loss scenario) or eliminate the loan offerings altogether. In any event, stay tuned for more in this area.

Categories


Fresh


Christina V. Paradowski has been elected chair-elect of Hispanic Unity of Florida’s (HUF) board of directors

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., February 19, 2021 – Tripp Scott, P.A. is proud to announce that Christina V. Paradowski, a director with the firm’s creditors’ rights and bankruptcy practice, has been elected chair-elect of Hispanic Unity of Florida’s (HUF) board of directors. 

“As someone who truly believes in HUF’s mission, it’s an honor to be elected chair-elect of their board of directors,” said Paradowski. “Hispanic Unity provides a community to help our neighbors acclimate to their new lives and gives them the tools so that they can fulfill their potential as civically, socially, and professionally engaged members of our community. I look forward to continuing to serve with my fellow board members as we find ways to expand HUF’s impact in South Florida.”

Shareholders clauses strengthen business, avoid litigation

As Published in Florida Trend

Partners often go into business together with the best of plans. But what happens when those plans go awry? Ideas for the business’s future may stray in different directions, partners may accuse each other of self-dealing, or one may give a spouse or family member an ownership stake — and a say in the business’s future. 50/50 disputes, selling or bequeathing of shares or ownership, minority ownership rights, and other such issues are not wholly unpredictable. Yet just like credit and debt, tax liabilities, or competition and market forces, shareholder disputes can have a material impact on the business.

Can You Count On Your Employer to Help You Get the Covid-19 Vaccine?

Employers may offer transportation or other incentives, but getting actual shots to workers remains unlikely—for now

With the Covid-19 vaccine slowly rolling out, many workers are wondering whether they can count on their employer to help them get shots.

Start a Conversation




The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.