ILNews

SCOTUS rules against student-loan company

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Supreme Court of the United States clarified March 23 the discharge of federal student-loan debt in bankruptcy involving an Indianapolis-based education loan guarantor.

In United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Francisco J. Espinosa, No. 08-1134, the SCOTUS unanimously ruled against United Student Aid Funds' attempt to collect interest from federally guaranteed student loans discharged in Bankruptcy Court. Francisco J. Espinosa had four student loans and claimed those as his only debt when he filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court accepted his plan to repay only the principal owed, without making an undue hardship finding or having an adversary proceeding as required by Bankruptcy Code.

USA Funds received notice of the plan from the court clerk but didn't object to or appeal once it was approved. Espinosa paid off the principal per the terms of the plan, and the interest was discharged. Three years later, USA Funds attempted to collect the unpaid interest. Espinosa reopened his case asking for an order to prohibit collection of his discharged debts. USA Funds filed a cross-motion under Federal Rule Civil 60(b)(4) to set aside the order confirming the plan. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Bankruptcy Court. The 9th Circuit found the Bankruptcy Court committed a legal error by not finding undue hardship in an adversary proceeding, but that didn't justify setting aside the confirmation order under Rule 60(b). This was in contrast with rulings in the 2nd and 10th Circuit Courts.

The SCOTUS granted transfer to decide whether an order that confirms the discharge of a student-loan debt without an undue hardship finding or adversary proceedings, or both, is a void judgment under Rule 60(b)(4).

USA Funds claimed it's entitled to relief because it didn't receive adequate notice of the proposed discharge of the loans. But the company received actual notice of the filing and contents of Espinosa's plan, even if Espinosa didn't serve the company with a summons and complaint, wrote Justice Clarence Thomas.

USA Funds argued that an order confirming a plan to discharge student-loan debt without an undue hardship finding is beyond the court's authority and therefore void. The justices weren't persuaded that not finding undue hardship in accordance with federal statute is on par with the jurisdictional and notice failings that define void judgments that qualify for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).

The Bankruptcy Court did commit a legal error by not finding undue hardship before confirming Espinosa's plan, but the order is still enforceable and binding because USA Funds had notice of the error and didn't timely object or appeal, the justices held.

The justices ruled the 9th Circuit went too far in holding Bankruptcy courts must confirm a plan proposing the discharge of student-loan debt without a determination of undue hardship in an adversary proceeding unless the creditor timely raises a specific objection. Discharging student-loan debt under Chapter 13 without determining undue hardship violates Bankruptcy Code. Courts must make an independent determination before a plan is confirmed, even if the creditor fails to object, or the debtor and creditor agree that there is an undue hardship, wrote the justice.

USA Funds said in a statement that the ruling provides the clarification the company has been seeking, given the disagreement among courts on the issue. USA Funds also said the ruling protects taxpayers by requiring the showing of undue hardship before discharging student-loan debt and puts Bankruptcy courts on notice regarding the law's requirements for discharge.

"Importantly, the opinion also includes strong language that puts debtors and their attorneys on notice that they will face penalties if they propose bankruptcy plans that attempt to skirt the undue hardship requirement of the federal statute," said the company.

ADVERTISEMENT

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT