Faish, In re
Decision Date | 19 October 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 95-7178,95-7178 |
Parties | , Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,715 In re Marjorie Jo FAISH, Debtor. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY v. Marjorie Jo FAISH, Appellant. . Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Marjorie Jo Faish, Harrisburg, PA, Pro Se.
K. Kevin Murphy, Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellee Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.
Before: SCIRICA, COWEN and ROTH Circuit Judges.
In this case we must decide whether appellant Marjorie Jo Faish is entitled to have her student-loan obligation discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. If Faish can establish that repayment of her student-loan debt would result in "undue hardship" under Sec. 523(a)(8)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, she is entitled to have her entire debt discharged. 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(8)(B).
The Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, citing equitable considerations, held that Faish need repay only $15,000.00, less than half of her loan obligation. On appeal, the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, applying a modified version of the "undue hardship" test set forth in In re Johnson, 5 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 532 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1979), reversed the bankruptcy court. The district court held that because Faish had failed to establish that the repayment of her entire student-loan obligation would impose "undue hardship," no discharge was appropriate here.
I.
Marjorie Jo Faish obtained a Master's Degree in Public Health and Community Health Services Administration from the University of Pittsburgh in 1989. To help defer the costs of her education, Faish obtained $31,879.31 in guaranteed student loans from the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency ("PHEAA"). Under the terms of the loan agreements, Faish was required to commence payments on her student-loan obligation on October 1, 1991.
On September 27, 1993, Faish filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition with the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On the same day, Faish filed a complaint to determine the dischargeability of her student loan debt to PHEAA. A trial on the issue of dischargeability was conducted on December 22, 1993.
On July 12, 1994, the bankruptcy court rendered its decision, making the following factual findings. See In re Faish, No. 93-01686, slip op. at 2-3 (Bankr.M.D.Pa. July 12, 1994). Faish has a job working for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the Department of Public Welfare, Bureau of Financial Operations, as a budget analyst. She earns a yearly gross salary of approximately $27,000.00. Faish does not own an automobile and commutes to and from work by bus. She has been unsuccessful in her pursuit of a higher-paying job.
Faish is thirty-years-old, unmarried and has an eleven-year-old son. Faish does not receive any child support payments from the father of her child. She is concerned about the quality of the neighborhood and school district that she lives in and is now saving money for an automobile and a new apartment in a better area.
Faish suffers from Crohn's disease, a chronic condition affecting the bowel. She also has back problems. The bankruptcy court found, however, that although Faish's health problems are "significant," they "are not interfering with her ability to work." Id. at 5.
Faish's original principal debt to PHEAA amounted to $31,879.31. From November 13, 1991, through June 2, 1993, Faish repaid $4,629.92 of her loan obligation. As of September 1993, Faish owed PHEAA $32,989.33. Id. at 2.
After setting forth these factual findings, the bankruptcy court observed that Id. at 4. Applying the first prong of the Johnson test, the bankruptcy court concluded that "Faish has failed to establish a lack of a financial ability to repay for the foreseeable future and therefore fails the mechanical prong of the Johnson test." Id. at 5.
Although the Johnson court expressly held that if a student-loan debtor fails to satisfy the mechanical test, "discharge of the student loan must be denied," Johnson, 5 Bankr.Ct.Dec. at 544, the bankruptcy court below went on to apply Johnson 's good faith and policy tests. As to the Johnson "good faith" test, the bankruptcy court found that Faish had "established a sufficient degree of good faith." Faish, No. 93-01686, slip op. at Even though Faish had failed the Johnson "undue hardship" test, the bankruptcy court went outside the Johnson framework and considered what it deemed to be equitable considerations. The court cited a bankruptcy court decision from another jurisdiction, Woyame v. Career Education & Management (In re Woyame), 161 B.R. 198 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1993), as authority for the proposition that bankruptcy courts have "some latitude in the amount of the nondischargeability determination even where individual prongs of the Johnson test are not met on their face." Faish, No. 93-01686, slip op. at 7.
6. However, Faish failed the "policy test" because "avoidance of the obligation was a significant consideration in the filing." Id
The bankruptcy court concluded that "[b]ased upon the equities involved, Faish will be given partial relief." Id. at 8. 2 The court observed that it was "especially influenced ... by Faish's need to support a young dependent, and her desire to accumulate some savings in order to provide a better life for him." Id. at 7-8. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court held that "$15,000.00 of Faish's student loan debt will be deemed to be nondischargeable, and the remainder of the obligation, including accrued and future interest, will be deemed to be dischargeable." Id. at 8.
On February 21, 1995, the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a memorandum opinion reversing the bankruptcy court. The district court expressly rejected the bankruptcy court's assumption that it was bound by Johnson. Faish, No. 94-1353, slip op. at 4 n. 2 (M.D.Pa. Feb. 21, 1995). The district court noted, however, that while it "would not rigidly confine itself to Johnson 's tripartite analysis," it would abide by Johnson 's "general framework." Id. at 4.
The district court observed that it was "the bankruptcy judge's step beyond Johnson which has given rise to PHEAA's appeal." Id. at 6. The district court then reviewed the propriety of the bankruptcy judge's consideration of equitable factors not contemplated by Johnson 's three-pronged inquiry. The court stated in dictum that "the bankruptcy court must be prepared to move beyond Johnson to the extent that the Johnson analysis fails to capture scenarios requiring some form of student debt relief to alleviate undue hardship." Id. at 7. However, "the circumstances necessary to justify discharge must be unusual, and the hardship faced in the event of full repayment must be substantial." Id. Citing Faish's favorable employment prospects, the court concluded that "the continued viability of governmentally guaranteed student loans is simply incompatible with discharging student debt on the instant facts." Id. at 7-8. Accordingly, the district court ordered that "Faish's student debt must be deemed nondischargeable in its entirety." Id. at 8. This appeal followed.
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 158(d). Our review of the district court's interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code is plenary. Leeper v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 49 F.3d 98, 100 (3d Cir.1995); In re Pelkowski, 990 F.2d 737, 739 (3d Cir.1993). The debtor has the burden of demonstrating undue hardship. Woodcock v. Chemical Bank, NYSHESC (In re Woodcock), 45 F.3d 363, 367 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 97, 133 L.Ed.2d 52 (1995); In re Roberson, 999 F.2d 1132, 1137 (7th Cir.1993).
III.
Section 523(a)(8)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code provides as follows:
(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt--
. . . . .
(8) for an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution, or for an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship or stipend, unless--
(A) such loan, benefit, scholarship, or stipend overpayment first became due more than 7 years (exclusive of any applicable suspension of the repayment period) before the date of the filing of the petition; or
(B) excepting such debt from discharge under this paragraph will impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor's dependents;
11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(8)(B) (emphasis added).
Section 523(a)(8)(B) was passed as part of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. As one...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Thompson
...discharged. Failure to prove any one of the three prongs will defeat the debtor's case entirely. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency v. Faish (In re Faish), 72 F.3d 298, 306 (3rd Cir.1995); Nys v. Educ. Credit. Mgmt. Corp. (In re 308 B.R. 436, 441 (9th Cir. BAP 2004) (citing Saxman v. Educ. ......
-
In re Stone
...45 F.3d 363, 367 (10th Cir.1995) (Debtor bears the burden to demonstrate undue hardship); Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency v. Faish (In re Faish), 72 F.3d 298, 301 (3rd Cir.1995) (Debtor bears the burden to demonstrate undue hardship.); Gilchrist v. Dept. of Educ., 865 F.2d 1329 (D.C.Cir.......
-
Greene v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (In re Greene)
...99-9029, 2000 WL 33673763, at *2 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 2000) (unpublished decision) (citing Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency v. Faish (In re Faish), 72 F.3d 298, 305-06 (3rd Cir. 1995)); see also Todd v. Access Grp., Inc. (In re Todd), 473 B.R. 676, 687 (Bankr. D. Md. 2012) (citing Edu......
-
In re Mosley
...324 (3rd Cir.2001); United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Pena (In re Pena), 155 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.1998); Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency v. Faish (In re Faish), 72 F.3d 298 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1009, 116 S.Ct. 2532, 135 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1996); In re Roberson, 999 F.2d 1132 (7......
-
Opinion Of Interest ' In Re Wolfson: A Potential Re-Evaluation Of The "Undue Hardship" Test For Student Loan Borrowers
...Footnotes 1 Wolfson v. DeVos (In re Wolfson), No. 1:19-bk-50717 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 14, 2022). 2 11 U.S.C. ' 523(a)(8). 3 In re Faish, 72 F.3d 298, 304-05 (3d Cir. Visit us at mayerbrown.com Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entiti......
-
Opinion of Interest – In re Wolfson: A Potential Re-Evaluation of the “Undue Hardship” Test for Student Loan Borrowers
...[1] Wolfson v. DeVos (In re Wolfson), No. 1:19-bk-50717 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 14, 2022). [2] 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). [3] In re Faish, 72 F.3d 298, 304-05 (3d Cir....
-
Opinion Of Interest ' In Re Wolfson: A Potential Re-Evaluation Of The "Undue Hardship" Test For Student Loan Borrowers
...Footnotes 1 Wolfson v. DeVos (In re Wolfson), No. 1:19-bk-50717 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 14, 2022). 2 11 U.S.C. ' 523(a)(8). 3 In re Faish, 72 F.3d 298, 304-05 (3d Cir. Visit us at mayerbrown.com Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entiti......
-
The Alteration of Ex Ante Agreements by the Bankruptcy Code.
...Control Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-647, [section] 3621, 104 Stat. 4789. (281) Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency v. Faish (In re Faish), 72 F.3d 298, 305-06 (3d Cir. 1995). (282) Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Frushour (In re Frushour), 433 F.3d 393, 400 (4th Cir. 2005). (283) United States Dep'......
-
How the Courts Have Gone Astray in Refusing to Discharge Student Loans: The Folly of Brunner, of Rewriting Repayment Terms, of Issuing Partial Discharges and of Considering Income-Based Repayment Plans.
...325 F.3d 541, 546-49 (4th Cir. 2003); in re Hedlund, 368 F. App'x 819 (9th Cir. 2000); Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency v. Faish, 72 F.3d 298, 306 (3rd Cir. 1995). No Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit has apparently adopted the Brunner 3-part test but the bankruptcy cou......
-
BACK TO BANKRUPTCY'S EQUITABLE ROOTS: RECALIBRATE THE DISCHARGEABILITY OF STUDENT LOANS THROUGH A MODIFIED EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPROACH.
...Agency (In re Bryant), 72 B.R. 913, 915 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987); see also Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency v. Faish (In re Faish), 72 F.3d 298, 304 (3d Cir. (14.) Jennifer L. Frattini, Note, The Dischargeability of Student Loans: An Undue Burden?, 17 Bankr. Devs. J. 537,564-65 (2001). (15.......
-
The Long Strange Trip to a Certainty of Hopelessness: The Legislative and Political History of the Nondischarge of Student Loans in Bankruptcy.
...App. Pt. 4(c) (16th ed. 2021)), affd, 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987). (31) Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency v. Faish (In re Faish), 72 F.3d 298, 305-06 (3d Cir. 1995). (32) Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Frushour (In re Frushour), 433 F.3d 393, 400 (4th Cir. 2005). (33) Gerhardt v. U.S. Dep't o......