Matter of Marion, Bankruptcy No. 83-1634
| Decision Date | 30 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 83-1634,Adv. No. 85-616. |
| Citation | 61 BR 815 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Paul E. MARION, Jr. and Diane M. Marion, Debtors. Paul E. MARION, Jr., Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Bart J. Tyson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Jane G. Malatesta, Killian & Gephart, Harrisburg, Pa., for defendant.
Presently before this Court is a Complaint to Discharge an educational loan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B). Based upon the testimony presented and the applicable law, we find that the debt is not discharged.
The Plaintiff, Paul E. Marion, Jr., was discharged under § 727 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 28, 1983. There remains outstanding, an educational loan held by the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (hereinafter "PHEAA") in the amount of $2,417.97, including principal and accrued interest thereon.
Mr. Marion claims that repayment of this debt would cause an undue hardship upon him and his family, and therefore, requests that the Court hold this debt to be discharged.
The following information has been adduced from testimony delivered by Mrs. Marion, the Plaintiff's wife, who testified in her husband's behalf.
1. Mr. Marion has been employed by Conrail for the last eight (8) years, with intermittent layoffs. Mr. Marion has been able to procure other jobs during those layoff periods.
2. The job with Conrail temporarily requires Mr. Marion to work in Springfield, Massachusetts. He travels to his job each Sunday, works four 10-hour days, and returns home each Thursday.
3. Mr. Marion's gross weekly wage is $530.40, for a monthly gross exceeding $2,121.60. He avers his monthly net pay approximates $1,423.32.
4. The following is a compilation of the money which Mr. Marion claims to be expending each month:
A. Springfield Expenses
a) travel (gas) $ 200.00
b) lodging 400.00
c) food 200.00
B. Home Expenses
a) rent $ 300.00
b) food 250.00
c) insurance 35.00
d) utilities 50.00
e) clothing 25.00
f) medical 100.00
5. The total monthly expenditures claimed is $1,560.00, or almost $150.00 more than Mr. Marion's monthly net income. Given this discrepancy, and receiving no testimony as to other sources of income, the Court must assume that these figures are somehow in error.
6. Mr. Marion has a wife and two children; a nine-year old son and a seventeen-year old daughter. The daughter is unmarried and pregnant.
7. Mrs. Marion is able to work but does not. She is presently having extensive dental work done, and testifies that she is highly self-conscious of her communications with other people. In spite of the witness's testimony the Court found her to be intelligent and communicative and at the very least, able to bring income into the family budget.
The dentist, who is presently owed $4,500, will not build the necessary lower plate until the back balance is paid. The $100.00 per month medical allocation is budgeted for the dentist's repayment.
The factors involved in determining "undue hardship" are thoroughly examined in In re Johnson, 5 B.C.D. 532 (Bkrtcy.E. D.Pa.1979). In that case, the Court first made it clear that the language chosen by the drafters of the Code, "undue hardship" indicates that the type of hardship involved in a particular circumstance must be significant, not merely general difficulty. The total amount of income must be inadequate to both maintain Mr. Marion and his family at a minimal standard of living and repay his educational loan.
Furthermore, in calculating the ability of the Plaintiff to repay this loan, we must consider the longest allowable repayment period, which is ten (10) years, and the corresponding lowest amounts of repayment. PHEAA has agreed to accept monthly payments of $30.00.
In order to measure the hardship facing Mr. Marion and his family, we must compare his future financial resources to his expenses. In determining Mr. Marion's future financial resources, we examine several factors.
First and foremost, is his present rate of pay. This is a clear and obvious indication of what Mr. Marion will earn in the future. While the testimony does admit that his employment with Conrail is always subject to periodic layoff, Mr. Marion has proved that he has been able to secure other substantial employment to meet his expenses during those intervals. This testimony also shows that Mr. Marion has the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Edward M. Johnson & Associates, Inc.
......v. . Edward M. JOHNSON, Defendant. . Bankruptcy No. 3-84-00813, Adv. No. 3-85-0930. . United States Bankruptcy Court, ...Defendant's guarantee of Omni's loan from the bank is a matter outside the scope of the stock purchase agreement, and the fact that he ......