ILNews

Bankruptcy discharge pushed for school debt

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Statutes of limitations exist for nearly all federal criminal actions - except for espionage, treason, and since 1991, student loan default.

Delinquent borrowers may be relieved to learn that student loan default – unlike espionage and treason – is not punishable by death. But defaulting on a student loan can have disastrous effects on a borrower’s personal credit and lead to a lifetime of financial difficulties.

In February, the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys called on Congress to restore bankruptcy discharge for student loans in its report, “The Student Loan ‘Debt Bomb’: America’s Next Mortgage-Style Economic Crisis?” In the meantime, colleges, federal assistance programs and state governments are taking steps toward reducing loan debt before it becomes unmanageable.

Gradual changes in bankruptcy law put the squeeze on borrowers

In 2010, student borrowing for higher education surpassed $100 billion and total outstanding student loans exceeded $1 trillion for the first time in 2011.

Before 1976, federal student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy. But that year, Congress created an exception to United States Bankruptcy Code to exclude federal student loans from discharge unless they had been in repayment for five years. That exception was included in the 1978 Bankruptcy Act; then in 1990, the five-year repayment provision was changed to seven years. In 2005, Congress eliminated altogether the ability to discharge all federal and most private student loans – with one exception.

Borrowers may – in rare instances – be able to discharge student loan debt if they can prove in court evidence of undue hardship.

“Impossible – I’ve never seen it done,” said Jeff Hester, chair of the Commercial & Bankruptcy Law section of the Indiana-polis Bar Association. “I stopped reading the cases.”

David Ollis, chief counsel for the Chapter 13 trustee in Seymour, said most lawyers don’t even mention that slim chance of proving undue hardship.

“It’s such an uphill battle that most attorneys are putting in their plans: ‘The undersigned debtor will not discharge student loan obligations,’” Ollis said.

The NACBA mentions in its report the challenges in proving undue hardship.

In the case of Marie Brunner v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp., 831 F.2d 935 (2d. Cir. 1987), the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that Marie Brunner failed to meet a three-pronged test of undue hardship: (1) that the debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a “minimal” standard of living for herself and her dependents if forced to repay the loans; (2) that additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans; and (3) that the debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans.

In some cases – such as Denise Megan Bronsdon v. Educational Credit Management Corp., 435 B.R. 791 (BAP 1st 2010) – where borrowers attended college later in life, with no evidence to suggest that their job prospects would improve, courts have granted undue hardship. But in order to prove undue hardship discharge, borrowers would need to hire an attorney to sue their lender – an expense that struggling graduates generally cannot afford.

Dangers of default

Last September, the U.S. Department of Education released 2009 cohort default rates, which had increased across all sectors from the prior year.

The rates only consist of borrowers whose first loan repayments came due between Oct. 1, 2008, and Sept. 30, 2009, and who defaulted before Sept. 30, 2010. Among that group, public institution defaults increased from 6 to 7.2 percent, private institution defaults increased from 4 to 4.6 percent and for-profit default rates jumped from 11.6 to 15 percent.

Ollis said that once student loans enter default, people who enter bankruptcy and make good-faith efforts to repay their debt find their problems are compounded by some sections of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Ollis helped litigate such a case several years ago.

In Joseph M. Black, Jr., Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Educational Credit Management Corp., and Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education, Defendants-Appellees, 459 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2006), Ollis was part of the plaintiff’s counsel in a dispute about collection fees on two defaulted loans.

In that case, David Barnes received Federal Family Education Loan Program loans for $2,000 and $2,625 to attend truck driving school. He defaulted in 1989. Barnes and his wife filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in 1999, and in 2000, Educational Credit Management Corp. filed an unsecured proof of claim in the Barneses’ bankruptcy proceeding for $9,108.01, which represented $7,714.88 in principal and interest on the two defaulted student loans and $1,393.13 in collection costs. The collection costs were 18.06 percent of the $7,714.88 total of the principal and interest Barnes owed by then. ECMC arrived at this figure by using the methodology prescribed in 34 C.F.R. Section 682.410(b)(2), which allows the use of a flat “make whole” rate, in lieu of actual collection costs in the particular case.

Ollis argued that the law unfairly penalizes people who are attempting to make good on their defaulted loans. The Higher Education Act makes defaulters liable for “reasonable” collection costs, which the FFELP calculates based on the loan guarantor’s entire portfolio. That means a borrower who defaults but is trying to repay that debt is paying a pro rata share of collection costs for all other defaulted loans, regardless of whether those other borrowers in default are attempting to repay their debts.

People who enter Chapter 13 with defaulted student loans pay down their other debts so that they may be able to repay their loan debt after emerging from bankruptcy three to five years later. But during that time, their loan debts continue to grow.

“The thing that separates a credit card from a student loan debt is, they’re both unsecured debt, but in a student loan, the interest continues to accrue during bankruptcy,” he said.

Read a related story on how higher education is looking at address the student-loan economic crisis.

The call for reform

Hester said that most clients under age 40 or 45 who file for bankruptcy have student loan debt.

“What I’ve never understood is, why are they non-dischargeable? What is so special about this debt?” Hester asked. He also said that a simple fix – and one not available to student loan borrowers – would be the ability to refinance existing student loans at the prime interest rate.

Alan White, professor of law at Valparaiso University Law School and visiting professor of law at City University of New York, has written extensively about mortgage foreclosure, fair lending and other consumer law issues. He does see some parallels between what’s happening with student loan debt and the housing bubble – particularly because borrowers’ loan debt is growing faster than their ability to pay.

“It’s really the non-dischargeability of the student loan that’s the problem,” he said. “We like to think that bankruptcy is a screening device – there are rules in bankruptcy that keep people who can afford their debts from turning their backs on them.”

Among NACBA’s many recommendations for reform is that Congress re-impose a reasonable statute of limitations on student loan collections. The Higher Education Act Amendments of 1991 removed those limitations. Since then, the government has had the power to pursue for a lifetime people who have defaulted on federal student loans.

Over the years, Ollis has seen a shift in the people filing for bankruptcy.

“We’re seeing more and more student loan debt in these Chapter 13s, and the interesting thing about Chapter 13 is it has moved from people who were formerly working in factories and things like that,” he said. “It’s kind of gone middle class, so to speak.”•

Survey data from the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • incroyable
    First off why should the taxpayers be subsidizing the fat salaries of academia who in many cases have been aggressively tearing away at the social fabric of the West for the past 50 years? (Deconstructionism, Marxism, you name it) Is that supposed to be a benefit to the nation? Only if the loans were for engineers and scientists and physicians. taxpayers subsidizing student loans for the erstwhile "humanities" is like the subject of a euthanasia having to pay for the poison in advance.

    Moreover, the debt ought to be nondischargeable like all others. Students are getting tricked into debt slavery and for what? A worthless diploma in many cases and a lifetime of interest-bearing debt they can never escape.

    I would like to see all the class-conflict Marxist professors who have benefitted from the postwar combine of the GI Bill and subsidized student loans to get together and out of solidarity contribute to a lobbying effort to modify student loans and make them dischargeable in bankruptcy. that is the least they can do to help the proletarian student graduates of today as they retire with their pensions and wonderful university ehalth care plans. And let the falsely named "nonprofit" universities soak up the losses. They dont pay enough in taxes to start with, anyhow. most universities could cut their managerial paper pushers by half and still do just as well.

    I compliment this newspaper on this excellent article on a timely issue of signficant public interest. I am sure that the paper will not share the sentiments of the first paragraph of my comment but nonetheless, well done.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT