Hoffman v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Hoffman)
Citation | 557 B.R. 177 |
Decision Date | 07 September 2016 |
Docket Number | Adversary No. 15-01484,Case No. 13-29577 HRT |
Parties | In re: Jerry Lewis Hoffman and Jan Marie Hoffman, Debtors. Jerry Lewis Hoffman Plaintiff, v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, Defendant. |
Court | United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Colorado |
Matthew Berkus, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.
Chad S. Caby, Conor A. Flanigan, Denver, CO, for Defendant.
Howard R. Tallman
This case comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) filed by Defendant Educational Credit Management Corporation (“ECMC”) on April 19, 2016 (docket #15) and Memorandum in Support (docket #16), the Response thereto filed by Debtor Jerry Lewis Hoffman (“Debtor”) (docket #17), and the Reply in Support filed by ECMC (docket #22). The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record and is now ready to rule.
Debtor and his wife filed a petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 25, 2013, and obtained confirmation of their plan on March 12, 2014. In February 2014, Creditor ECMC filed Proof of Claim No. 6–1, in the amount of $39,195.35, for student loan distributions made between 1990 and 1992. Debtor objected, asking the Court to disallow the claim and issue a declaratory judgment that the “debt is invalid and not owed by the Debtor.” Because no response was filed, the Proof of Claim was disallowed on July 22, 2014 (docket #52 in case #13-29577), and as a result, ECMC has and will not share in any distributions under the confirmed plan. In the order disallowing ECMC's claim, the Court noted no determination had been made as to the dischargeability of the claim, because Debtor had not initiated an adversary proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)
.1
Over a year later, on November 24, 2015, Debtor brought this adversary proceeding against ECMC. In the complaint, Debtor stated as follows:
Although the Bankruptcy Court disallowed Defendant's Proof of Claim, [Defendant] may try to pursue collection activity following the entry of discharge in the underlying bankruptcy, due to the nondischargeable nature of student loans. In this instance, Plaintiff did not receive the student loan distributions, nor were the funds distributed to the school or any other third party. Plaintiff received no benefit of the funds claimed by Defendant .... Because the debt claimed by Defendant is an invalid debt, repayment of the amount claimed would result in a hardship on Debtor and Debtor's dependents .... A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances in order that Plaintiff may ascertain his rights and duties as to whether the Defendant may resume collections of this debt following the discharge of his Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.
In its answer, ECMC alleged the balance of Debtor's loan was not less than $54,759.60 (based on additional loans disbursed in 1993 and 1994). ECMC also contended Debtor's complaint failed to state a claim for relief for “undue hardship” as established by § 523(a)(8)
and applicable case law.
At a scheduling conference, the parties agreed this matter is a core proceeding arising under Title 11 and is thereby authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A)
. A discovery schedule was agreed upon, and a further scheduling conference is currently set for September 13, 2016, to set a trial.
From 1989 to 1993, Debtor received six federal Stafford loans totaling $16,486. Debtor admits he borrowed these funds, and they were used to pay his tuition at Keene State College in New Hampshire (“Keene”), where he attended undergraduate school from September 1989 to April 1994. Checks from these loans were made payable to both the college and to Debtor, jointly. (Response, Ex. 3,4,5). Debtor acknowledges endorsing these checks and allowing them to be applied to his tuition account. These loans were consolidated in 2002, and are evidenced by Proof of Claim #3-1 filed by the Department of Education through its agent, MOHELA (Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority). Debtor has acknowledged this debt and not moved for MOHELA's claim to be disallowed or discharged.
From 1990 to 1994, Debtor also applied for four federal SLS loans from Citibank totaling $17,000. These loans are evidenced by four documents entitled “Application and Promissory Note for an SLS Loan.” (Ex. B-1 to B-4). Debtor signed these documents, as did a representative of Keene (in the “school certification” section). The notes are stamped by Citibank with a lender code and date received, but are not signed by a Citibank representative. Debtor admits he signed the documents, but alleges the applications were not properly processed and the funds he requested were never dispersed to him. Keene has no record of receiving the funds, and neither the school nor the lender has copies of the SLS disbursement checks.
While Citibank was the original lender, United Student Aid Funds (“USA Funds”) was the original guarantor. ECMC is the current guarantor providing services to the United States Department of Education. ECMC is a student loan guaranty agency in the Federal Family Education Loan Program (“FFELP”) and is governed by the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1070, et seq.,
and 34 C.F.R. 682.100, et seq. ECMC is a non-profit corporation that provides specialized guarantor services, which include accepting assignment of student loans when a borrower has filed bankruptcy or an adversary proceeding is commenced contesting the validity or enforceability of a student loan debt. (Ex. A).
In December 2005, Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. (“PCR”), a duly authorized representative of USA Funds, issued to Debtor a Notice Prior to Wage Withholding, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1095a
,2 to collect amounts due under the SLS loans. Debtor requested an administrative wage garnishment hearing, challenging the legality and enforceability of the SLS Loans. In March 2006, a Wage Withholding Administrative Hearing (the “Administrative Hearing”) was granted. The parties submitted written evidence and argument. Debtor asserted the wage garnishment was improper because: 1) no SLS Loan disbursements were ever made to him; 2) the Promissory Notes were not enforceable because the lender portion was never completed; and 3) the Notice of Loan Guaranty and Disclosure Statements pertained only to two out of four academic calendar years and were not signed by Debtor. (Ex. G., p. 2).
After consideration of the written argument and evidence submitted by the parties, on April 13, 2006, the Hearing Officer issued a “Wage Withholding Administrative Hearing Final Decision” (the “Agency Decision”), in which he concluded as follows:
In May 2006, Debtor filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado seeking judicial review of the Agency Decision and a declaratory judgment that the student loan debts were not enforceable. On July 29, 2008, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice3 and the District Court action was closed. (Ex. I, J, K).
Following dismissal of the District Court Action, Debtor's wages were the subject of several administrative wage garnishment payments on his SLS Loans, including six voluntary or involuntary payments made on: (1) August 4, 2008; (2) August 8, 2008; (3) August 18, 2008; (4) August 25, 2008; (5) September 2, 2008; and September 8, 2008. (Ex. A).
When Debtor and his wife filed for bankruptcy in November 2013, they listed the following debts on Schedule E: (1) $10,842 owing to MOHELA; (2) $35,810 to Sallie Mae (for wife's student loan); and (3) four debts owing to the U.S. Department of Education in the amounts of $11,080, $9,395, $10,713, and $10,101 (totaling $52,131). These debts were all marked as disputed. After several objections were resolved, the plan was confirmed in March 2014, with Debtor to make...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McDaniel v. Navient Solutions, LLC (In re McDaniel)
...evidence, that a debt exists and the debt is the type excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(8)." Hoffman v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Hoffman) , 557 B.R. 177, 184 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2016) (citations omitted).2. Principles of Res Judicata and Espinosa .Res judicata applies when the foll......
-
Kadingo v. Johnson
...issued a Final Agency Decision on October 30, 2015, [# 42–3], affirming the ALJ's initial decision.9 See304 F.Supp.3d 1018 In re Hoffman , 557 B.R. 177, 187 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2016) ("Administrative proceedings are entitled to preclusive effect where they constitute a final agency decision.")......
-
Latson v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (In re Latson)
...and in part by [United Student Aid Funds, Inc.], a private non-profit corporation." Hoffman v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Hoffman), 557 B.R. 177, 185 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2016). Thus, Loans 12 through 18 were "insured or guaranteed" by a governmental unit or made under a program "funded" i......
-
Latson v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (In re Latson)
...and in part by [United Student Aid Funds, Inc.], a private non-profit corporation." Hoffman v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Hoffman), 557 B.R. 177, 185 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2016). Thus, Loans 12 through 18 were "insured or guaranteed" by a governmental unit or made under a program "funded" i......
-
Stern Claims and Article Iii Adjudication—the Bankruptcy Judge Knows Best?
...Capuccio v. Capuccio (In re Capuccio), 558 B.R. 461, 464 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2016); Hoffman v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Hoffman), 557 B.R. 177, 184 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2016); Chi. Reg'l Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Van Der Laan (In re Van Der Laan), 556 B.R. 366, 376 (Bankr. N.D......