Merchant, In re
| Decision Date | 11 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1969,90-1969 |
| Citation | 958 F.2d 738 |
| Parties | , 28 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1290, 22 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1169, 73 Ed. Law Rep. 619, Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,489 In re Weiner MERCHANT, Debtor. ANDREWS UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Weiner MERCHANT, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert A. Yingst, Holly F. Underwood (argued and briefed), Boothby, Ziprick & Yingst, Berrien Springs, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.
Weiner Merchant, pro se.
Before KEITH and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSTONE, District Judge. *
Weiner Merchant, a citizen of Great Britain, came to the United States to attend Andrews University. Merchant received a loan from Michigan National Bank to pay a portion of her educational expenses. The Bank made the loan in connection with a student loan program arranged with the University. The program included a provision to give the Bank full recourse against the University in the event a student defaults on the debt.
In addition to the Bank loan, Merchant received assistance for educational expenses which are evidenced by promissory notes payable to the University.
After graduation, Merchant defaulted on both her obligations to the Bank and the University. The University, pursuant to the guaranty agreement, paid the Bank, took assignment of the note, and became the sole student loan creditor for Merchant's educational expenses.
One year after graduation, faced with $28,892.40 in debts, of which $23,614.00 was attributable to these educational loans, Merchant filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy. Soon thereafter, in an effort to gain citizenship, Merchant asked the University for a copy of her academic transcript. When her request was refused she filed an adversary proceeding against the University claiming its refusal violated the automatic stay provision, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The University claimed that both the educational loan and credit extensions are excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and thus it had a right to withhold the transcript.
The bankruptcy court held that neither the Bank loan nor the extensions of credit fall within the exceptions to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and that the University violated 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) by withholding the transcript. On appeal, the district court affirmed.
Three issues are raised in this appeal. First, whether educational loans, made by commercial lenders and guaranteed by private educational institutions, are dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Next, whether extensions of credit for educational expenses are dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Finally, whether a school may withhold the transcript of a student who has defaulted on educational loans and filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7.
Under In re Vause, 886 F.2d 794, 798 (6th Cir.1989), the court applies a de novo standard of review in determining Congress' intent when enacting 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). This statute provides:
(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.... 1
To ascertain the Congressional intent we review the language of the statute together with the design and policy underlying the overall statutory scheme. K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291, 108 S.Ct. 1811, 1817, 100 L.Ed.2d 313 (1988); Crandon v. United States, 494 The Bankruptcy Code was drafted to provide a discharge procedure that enables insolvent debtors the ability to reorder their affairs and enjoy "a new opportunity in life with a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of preexisting debt." Grogan v. Garner, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 654, 659, 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991) (quoting Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 244, 54 S.Ct. 695, 699, 78 L.Ed. 1230 (1934)). Congress elected to exclude certain obligations from the general policy of discharge based upon the conclusion that the public policy in issue, availability and solvency of educational loan programs for students, outweighs the debtor's need for a fresh start.
U.S. 152, 110 S.Ct. 997, 1001, 108 L.Ed.2d 132 (1990).
The legislative history of the 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) teaches us that the exclusion of educational loans from the discharge provisions was designed to remedy an abuse by students who, immediately upon graduation, filed petition for bankruptcy and obtained a discharge of their educational loans. This was due to the fact that unlike commercial transactions where credit is extended based on the debtor's collateral, income, and credit rating, student loans are generally unsecured and based solely upon the belief that the student-debtor will have sufficient income to service the debt following graduation. See H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 466-75 reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5787.
As stated by Senator DeConcini on the floor of the Senate:
Section 523(a)(8) represents a compromise between the House bill and the Senate amendment regarding educational loans. This provision is broader than current law which is limited to federally insured loans. Only educational loans owing to a governmental unit or a nonprofit institution of higher education are made non-dischargeable under this paragraph.
124 Cong.Rec. S33998 (daily ed. Oct. 5, 1978) (statement of Sen. DeConcini).
Thus, Congress decided that many student loans should not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. With this background we turn to examine the statutory language addressed in the issues raised on this appeal.
The district court correctly found that (1) the University is a nonprofit institution, and (2) a student loan program existed between the University and the Bank. However, we reject its finding that the University did not "fund in whole or in part" an educational bank loan.
The district court reasoned that a nonprofit institution funds an educational bank loan when they agree to purchase every loan and that the University did not fund the educational loan because it purchased such loans only in the event of default. We are of the opinion that this narrow construction of the discharge provision failed to give proper weight to the design and policy underlying the overall statutory scheme of the educational loan exception to discharge.
In summary, the University, a nonprofit educational institution, processed and submitted Merchant's student loan application to the Bank. Upon default, the Bank had full recourse against the University for the balance due on the note. The University's participation in the student loan program was crucial to Merchant receiving money to fund a portion of her education. We hold that Merchant's obligation to the Bank was funded, in part, by the University and that the loan is not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).
The district court found that credit extensions in favor of Merchant as evidenced by the promissory notes payable to the University were beyond the scope of the definition of a "loan" as found in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). We disagree.
The term "loan" is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code; therefore, the court must infer that Congress intended for the term "loan" to be construed in accordance with its established meaning. NLRB v. [A] contract whereby, in substance one party transfers to the other a sum of money which that other agrees to repay absolutely, together with such additional sums as may be agreed upon for its use. If such be the intent of the parties, the transaction will be considered a loan without regard to its form.
Amax Coal Co., 453 U.S. 322, 329, 101 S.Ct. 2789, 2793, 69 L.Ed.2d 672 (1981). While this Circuit has not defined the term "loan" other circuits have adopted the following definition:
In re Grand Union Co., 219 F. 353 (2nd Cir.1914). See also United States Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Smith, 807 F.2d 122, 124 (8th Cir.1986); United Virginia Corp. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 624 F.2d 814, 816 (4th Cir.1980); Calcasieu-Marine Natl. Bank v. American Employer's Insurance Co., 533 F.2d 290, 296-7 (5th Cir.1976) ().
Notwithstanding this broad definition, both the district court and the bankruptcy court determined that the University's credit extension was not within the 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) exception to discharge.
The district and bankruptcy courts rejected the reasoning of In re Hill, 44 B.R. 645 (Bankr.D.Mass.1984). The Hill court found that the term "loan" under section 523(a)(8) included extensions of credit when the following factors are present: (1) the student was aware of the credit extension and acknowledges the money owed; (2) the amount owed was liquidated; and (3) the extended credit was defined as "a sum of money due to a person". We find the Hill analysis persuasive. 2
In this case Merchant signed forms evidencing the amount of her indebtedness before she registered for classes. She received her education from the University by agreeing to pay these sums of money owed for educational expenses after graduation. The credit extensions were loans for educational...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T I Federal Credit Union v. Delbonis
...nonprofit organizations supersedes the interest in minimizing the financial difficulties of individual debtors. See id.; In re Merchant, 958 F.2d 738, 740 (6th Cir.1992). Its purpose, essentially, is to preclude certain educational loan debtors from taking unfair advantage of the Code's "fr......
-
In re Mu'Min
...if a university refuses to provide a transcript upon request of a debtor during the pendency of the bankruptcy case. See Merchant, 958 F.2d at 741-42 (holding that even though the credit extension was a nondischargeable debt under § 523(a)(8), the university violated the stay because educat......
-
Internal Revenue Serv. v. Murphy
...of the phrase "willful violation." Nelson v. Taglienti (In re Nelson ), 994 F.2d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 1993) ; Andrews Univ. v. Merchant (In re Merchant ), 958 F.2d 738, 742 (6th Cir. 1992) ; Matter of Sherk (In re Sherk ), 918 F.2d 1170, 1178 (5th Cir. 1990)abrogated on other grounds by Taylor ......
-
Bronsdon v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp..
...consumer bankruptcies of former students motivated primarily to avoid payment of education loan debts' ”); Andrews Univ. v. Merchant (In re Merchant), 958 F.2d 738, 740 (6th Cir.1992) (“The legislative history of the 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) teaches us that the exclusion of education loans fro......
-
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.
...523(a)(8) both as an expansion and stronger version of 20 U.S.C. [section] 1087-3). (18) Andrews Univ. v. Merchant (In re Merchant), 958 F.2d 738, 740 (6th Cir. 1992). See John Patrick Hunt, Help or Hardship?: Income-Driven Repayment in Student-Loan Bankruptcies, 106 Geo. L.J. 1287, 1304-07......
-
Chapter 2 Section 523(A)(8): Treatment of Educational Debt under the Bankruptcy Code
...of Eng'g (In re Busson-Sokolik), 635 F.3d 261 (7th Cir. 2011) (school was § 501(c)(3) nonprofit institution); Andrews Univ. v. Merchant, 958 F.2d 738 (6th Cir. 1992) (private university was nonprofit institution for purposes of this section); and Rizor v. Acapita Educ. Fin. Corp. (In re Riz......
-
The Long Strange Trip to a Certainty of Hopelessness: The Legislative and Political History of the Nondischarge of Student Loans in Bankruptcy.
...583 B.R. 850 (E.D. Pa. 2018). (49) H.R. REP. NO. 105-750, at 408 (1998) (Conf. Rep.). (50) Andrews Univ. v. Merchant (In re Merchant), 958 F.2d 738, 742 (6th Cir. (51) Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency v. Faish (In re Faish), 72 F.3d 298, 303 (3d Cir. 1995). (52) H.R. REP. NO. 105-750, at ......