11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(8) requires a court assessing undue hardship to consider support expenses for a family member who qualifies as the debtor’s dependent, absent evidence of bad faith.

In Re Deguevara · filed 2005-03-31(a)(8)

Where a debtor demonstrates that she is supporting a family member who qualifies as a dependent under the IRS guidelines and is listed on the debtor's tax returns as a dependent, and where there is no evidence that the debtor has undertaken these obligations to avoid her obligations to creditors or has acted in bad faith, a court has no grounds to exclude these expenses in considering whether repayment of a student loan would be an undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a partial discharge of student loan debt only to the extent repayment would impose an undue hardship.

Fields v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp. (In Re Fields) · filed 2005-04-05(a)(8)

Appellants correctly argue that partial discharge of student loans is improper where a debtor has not shown undue hardship as to that portion of student loan debt to be discharged. In this case, however, the debtor has shown undue hardship as to a portion of the student loan debt.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a partial undue hardship discharge of student loan debt remaining after an income contingent repayment plan’s 300-month period.

Grove v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Grove) · filed 2005-04-05(a)(8)

Thus, Grove’s student loan debt is only an undue hardship as to any sums remaining at the end of the income contingent repayment plan’s 300-month repayment period, and only this portion is discharged.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge student loans to prove undue hardship under the totality of the circumstances.

Bott v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Bott) · filed 2005-04-29(a)(8)

Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proof that some payment on the Note would result in an undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) keeps a student loan nondischargeable when repayment does not impose an undue hardship on the debtor.

Rose v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Rose) · filed 2005-05-31(a)(8)

The bankruptcy court, therefore, erred in finding that failing to discharge this obligation would impose an undue hardship on Rose. We reverse, and hold that the student loan obligation to ECMC in the amount of $41,453.44 is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(8) makes student loans nondischargeable unless repayment would impose undue hardship, assessed under the totality of the debtor’s circumstances.

Lily E. Rose v. ECMC · filed 2005-05-31(a)(8)

The bankruptcy court, therefore, erred in finding that failing to discharge this obligation would impose an undue hardship on Rose. We reverse, and hold that the student loan obligation to ECMC in the amount of $41,453.44 is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of a student loan for undue hardship only when repayment would prevent the debtor from maintaining a minimal standard of living.

In Re NM · filed 2005-06-01(a)(8)

The court may discharge a student loan only when payment would necessarily impair the debtor's ability to maintain a minimal standard of living. Because the debtor now derives sufficient income both to pay her student loan and to preserve a minimal living standard, her student loan obligations are not dischargeable in the present instance.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge when the debtor fails to prove that repayment would impose an undue hardship.

Kehler v. Nelnet Loan Services (In Re Kehler) · filed 2005-06-01(a)(8)

He thus has not met his burden of proving that he is entitled to a discharge of those debts pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). The court finds, therefore, that the student loan debts are excepted from the debtor’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of a student loan for undue hardship when repayment would prevent the debtor from maintaining a minimal standard of living.

N. M. v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In re N. M.) · filed 2005-06-01(a)(8)

In the present instance, section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code essentially compels the debtor to address rather than to avoid the challenge of student loan repayment. The court may discharge a student loan only when payment would necessarily impair the debtor’s ability to maintain a minimal standard of living.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking a partial student loan discharge for undue hardship to meet the Brunner standard, including proof of persistent hardship and good faith repayment efforts.

Tirch v. Pennsylvania Higher Ed. Assistance Agency · filed 2005-06-03(a)(8)

Because Tirch has failed to demonstrate that her circumstances meet the Brunner standard to qualify for an “undue hardship” partial discharge of her student loans, we REVERSE the decision of the BAP affirming the judgment of the bankruptcy court.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge a student loan to show that necessary and reasonable living expenses leave too little to repay it.

Smith v. Educational Credit Management Corp. · filed 2005-06-06(a)(8)

To prove undue hardship for purposes of § 523(a)(8), a debtor must show that her necessary and reasonable expenses leave her with too little to afford repayment.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of a student loan when excepting it from discharge would impose undue hardship, assessed under the totality of the debtor’s circumstances.

Ratzsch v. Student Loan Finance Corp. (In Re Ratzsch) · filed 2005-06-10(a)(8)

To determine whether excepting a student loan debt from a debtor’s discharge would impose an undue hardship, the court must consider the totality of circumstances. ... The court concludes that excepting the debt from discharge would impose an undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of a student loan when the debtor proves repayment would impose an undue hardship.

Lorenz v. American Education Services/Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (In Re Lorenz) · filed 2005-06-17(a)(8)

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that the Debtor has met his burden under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and his non-HEAL consolidated student loan owed to Defendant is deemed dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(8) keeps a student loan from discharge when the debtor fails to prove that repayment would cause undue hardship.

Gill v. Nelnet Loan Services, Inc. (In Re Gill) · filed 2005-06-21(a)(8)

Therefore, the Court finds that Mrs. Gill is not entitled to a discharge of the Loan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) does not treat a debtor’s failure to enter an income contingent repayment plan, by itself, as proof of bad faith in repaying a student loan.

Allen v. American Education Services (In Re Allen) · filed 2005-05-03(a)(8)

Therefore, that the Debtor has faded to take advantage of the WDF ICRP dictates neither a finding that she has failed to make a good faith effort to repay her student loan debt to ECMC nor, consequently, a holding that her student loan debt must be excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor to establish undue hardship before student loan debt can be discharged.

Ruehle v. Educational Credit · filed 2005-06-23(a)(8)

The proposed discharge violated both the Bankruptcy Code, U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001(6). These provisions require that to justify the discharge of a student loan debt, a debtor must establish undue hardship by filing a complaint for an adversarial hearing and serving the creditor with a summons.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor proves every part of the undue hardship test.

Azwar v. Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. (In Re Azwar) · filed 2005-06-27(a)(8)

A student loan debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(8) if the debtor fails to show any one prong of this test.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor to satisfy all three parts of the undue hardship test to discharge a student loan.

Thompson v. New Mexico Student Loan Guarantee Corp. (In Re Thompson) · filed 2005-07-22(a)(8)

The debtor must satisfy all three parts of this test before her student loans can be discharged. Failure to prove any one of the three prongs will defeat the debtor’s case entirely.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor proves undue hardship under each element of the Brunner test.

Chapelle v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Chapelle) · filed 2005-07-22(a)(8)

However, where both Congress and the courts have set a clear and high threshold for determining the dischargeability of student loans, Ms. Chapelle is not entitled to a discharge under § 523(a)(8) because she has not demonstrated that she has taken adequate steps to deal appropriately and realistically with her student loan obligation.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge a student loan to prove undue hardship, including an inability to maintain a minimal standard of living while repaying it.

Berchtold v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Berchtold) · filed 2005-07-26(a)(8)

Mr. Berchtold failed to prove that the repayment of his student loan debt would represent an undue hardship for Debtors. They are capable of repaying the loans and maintaining a minimal standard of living; their financial situation is not burdened by additional circumstances that will prevent them from being able to make payments on the loan for a significant portion of the repayment period; and Mr. Berchtold has not demonstrated good faith by attempting to maximize income. Mr. Berchtold’s debt to Defendant, therefore, is not subject to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor proves that repayment would impose an undue hardship.

Parker v. General Revenue Corp. (In Re Parker) · filed 2005-08-08(a)(8)

The Debtor bears the burden of proving that excepting her student loans from discharge pursuant to Section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code would result in an undue hardship. The Debtor has failed to establish undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor proves that excepting them would impose an undue hardship.

Parker v. Student Loan Guaran. · filed 2005-08-08(a)(8)

The Debtor bears the burden of proving that excepting her student loans from discharge pursuant to Section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code would result in an undue hardship. The Debtor has failed to establish undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) allows a bankruptcy court to discharge student loan debt, in whole or in part, only if the debtor shows undue hardship.

Alderete v. Educational Credit Management Corp. · filed 2005-06-29(a)(8)

We agree with our sister circuits that a bankruptcy court cannot exercise its § 105(a) powers to grant a partial discharge of student loans unless § 523(a)(8) has been satisfied.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts education loans from discharge unless repayment would impose an undue hardship on the debtor.

Cehula v. Servicing (In Re Cehula) · filed 2005-07-22(a)(8)

After applying the above test to the facts of this case, we conclude that the debt owed by debtor to Sallie Mae Servicing Center for the above education loans is excepted from discharge by § 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code. Having to pay the debt would not impose undue hardship on debtor.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loans when repayment would impose undue hardship, which the debtor must prove under the Brunner test.

Mosley v. General Revenue Corp. (In Re Mosley) · filed 2005-08-25(a)(8)

The Court holds that the Debtor has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, his entitlement to relief under section 523(a)(8) and the Brunner test.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a bankruptcy court assessing undue hardship to take judicial notice of how a debtor’s well-known medical condition may affect earning capacity.

Hertzel v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Hertzel) · filed 2005-08-30(a)(8)

Based on the above, it is clear that a bankruptcy court may take judicial notice of the effect that a debtor’s well-known medical condition may have on the debtor’s ability to earn a living.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a court to take judicial notice of how a debtor’s well-known medical condition may affect earning capacity when deciding whether student loan repayment would impose an undue hardship.

Hertzel v. Edu Credit Mgt · filed 2005-08-30(a)(8)

Based on the above, it is clear that a bankruptcy court may take judicial notice of the effect that a debtor’s well-known medical condition may have on the debtor’s ability to earn a living.

Under § 523(a)(8), circumstances beyond a debtor’s current inability to pay can establish undue hardship if they show that the inability is likely to persist for a significant portion of the student loan repayment period.

Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency v. Taylor · filed 2005-09-08(a)(8)

The additional circumstances required by the second factor in Brunner may consist of any circumstances, beyond the mere inability to pay, that demonstrate the inability to pay is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loans for undue hardship when, considering all relevant circumstances, the debtor cannot maintain a reasonable minimal standard of living for the debtor and dependents while repaying the loans now and in the foreseeable future.

Hicks v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Hicks) · filed 2005-09-12(a)(8)

For all these reasons, this Court views the best approach as one that focuses on one simple question: Can the debtor now, and in the foreseeable future, maintain a reasonable, minimal standard of living for the debtor and the debtor’s dependents and still afford to make payments on the debtor’s student loans?

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of education loans for undue hardship based on the totality of the debtor’s circumstances.

Nash v. Connecticut Student Loan Foundation · filed 2005-08-17(a)(8)

It is a fair inference that in doing so, Congress intended the phrase to stay broad, giving bankruptcy judges the authority and the responsibility to decide, case-by-case, whether the particular circumstances of the debtor warranted relief from the bar to discharge of education debt. If one must express the proposition in terms of a “test,” then the “test” most appropriate to the proper exercise of that authority and responsibility is the “totality-of-the-circumstances test.”

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loans for undue hardship when the debt threatens a debtor’s health and, in turn, her financial outlook.

Reynolds v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (In Re Reynolds) · filed 2005-10-10(a)(8)

Where the evidence shows that financial obligations are likely to undermine a debtor's health, which in turn will affect the debtor's financial outlook, we think it entirely consistent with Andrews and Long to take such facts and circumstances into account.

Section 523(a)(8) permits separate undue hardship determinations for distinct student loans, but does not permit a court to discharge only part of an individual loan.

Allen v. American Education Services (In Re Allen) · filed 2005-09-14(a)(8)

In light of the foregoing, and because the Debtor’s student loan debts, although they have been consolidated, have been consolidated into two discrete loans (one for $16,915 and the other for $30,225), the Court can view each one of those two loans separately for nondischargeability purposes under § 523(a)(8); the only thing that the Court is precluded from doing is breaking up for nondischargeability purposes either or both of said consolidation loans.

Section 523(a)(8)’s undue hardship analysis excludes expenses for people who are not the debtor’s dependents.

Bray v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Bray) · filed 2005-10-14(a)(8)

Consequently, expenses for the maintenance and support of persons other than the Debtor’s dependents should not be deducted when determining what income is available to the Debtor to make payments on the student loan and therefore in determining whether repayment of the loan would constitute an undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loan debt when repayment would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents.

Balm v. Salliemae Servicing Corp. (Balm) · filed 2005-11-14(a)(8)

The Court must conclude that excepting the student loan debt of more than $30,000 from discharge would impose undue hardship on Debtor given her earning capacity.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge student loans for undue hardship to show that the inability to repay is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period.

Simmons v. United States Department of Education (In Re Simmons) · filed 2005-12-13(a)(8)

Mr. Simmons has not met his burden of proof to show that additional circumstances exist indicating that his state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period. The Court cannot find a “certainty of hopelessness.” ... Accordingly, although the finding that the second prong of the Brun-ner test has not been met precludes discharge at this time, an order of deferral will be entered and will be discussed in more detail below.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of a student loan when repayment would impose an undue hardship on the debtor.

Woody v. United States Department of Justice (In Re Woody) · filed 2005-12-15(a)(8)

The Court finds that repayment of Mr. Woody’s 523 Loan would constitute an undue hardship. Mr. Woody cannot afford to repay any of the 523 Loan while maintaining a minimal standard of living.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a good faith effort to repay an education loan; a debtor who can pay something but refuses does not satisfy that requirement.

Shilling v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp. (In Re Shilling) · filed 2005-11-04(a)(8)

If a debtor can pay something towards the loan but refuses to do so, no matter how little it may be, we must conclude that the debtor has not made a good faith effort to repay an education loan for purposes of § 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(8) permits full or partial discharge of covered student loans only if the debtor shows undue hardship.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Waterhouse · filed 2005-11-07(a)(8)

With no Fourth Circuit opinion directly on point, and finding the foregoing rationales persuasive, this Court follows the decisions of the Tenth, Sixth, Eleventh, and Ninth Circuits in holding that no student loan debt subject to § 523(a)(8) may be discharged in whole or in part without a showing of undue hardship by the debtor.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge student loans to prove undue hardship, including persistent exceptional circumstances and good faith efforts to repay.

In Re Sandra Jane Frushour, Debtor. Educational Credit Management Corporation v. Frushour · filed 2005-12-30(a)(8)

Frushour failed to show that she has exceptional circumstances, and she refused to consider loan consolidation programs that would have required from her a monthly payment of near zero based on her current income. She has thus failed to prove that she is in the limited class of debtors for which § 523(a)(8) meant to allow discharge.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge student loans for undue hardship to prove a good faith effort to repay them.

Burton v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Burton) · filed 2006-01-11(a)(8)

Thus, failing to meet his burden of proof under the test set forth in Brunner, the Court finds that Burton’s student loans must be declared non-dischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) does not permit discharge of a student loan for undue hardship when the debtor can maintain a minimal standard of living while repaying it.

Southard v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Southard) · filed 2006-01-31(a)(8)

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has the disposable income to make even the highest possible student loan payment without causing his and his wife’s lifestyle to fall below a minimal standard of living. ... Assuming, without deciding, that this Court found that Plaintiff met prongs two and three of the Brunner test, Plaintiff would still not be entitled to a discharge since he clearly failed to meet the first prong.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor claiming undue hardship to account for a domestic partner’s finances when they operate as one household and financial unit.

Lorenz v. American Education Services/Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (In Re Lorenz) · filed 2006-02-01(a)(8)

Given that both Lorenz and Rene (who was called as Lorenz’s witness) forthrightly conceded that they are, and for years have operated as, a single household, a single financial entity, it was incumbent on Lorenz to prove undue hardship within that context. The couple’s historical and ongoing practices, including devotion of joint assets, and Rene’s personal assets, to Lorenz’s personal expenses, education, and well being, compel our conclusion.

A debtor’s age alone does not establish undue hardship when the debtor chose to incur educational debt later in life.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. DeGroot · filed 2006-03-07(a)(8)

Certainly, choosing to incur debt in pursuit of an education later in life is a decision within the debtor’s control, and simply because things do not work out as the debtor had hoped does not make age alone a sufficient reason to discharge student loans.

Section 523(a)(8) does not permit discharge of student loans for undue hardship when an income contingent repayment plan requires no current payments and the debtor can maintain a minimal standard of living.

Geyer v. U.S. Department of Education (In Re Geyer) · filed 2006-03-13(a)(8)

Excluding the student loans from discharge does not impose any hardship on Debtors, since, by virtue of the Income Contingent Repayment Plan, they are not required to make any payments at all. Accordingly, they cannot show that they cannot maintain a minimal standard of living if the loans are not discharged.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a court to discharge individual student loans that would impose undue hardship, but does not permit changing the terms of an individual loan.

Gharavi v. U.S. Department of Education & Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Gharavi) · filed 2006-01-10(a)(8)

Judge Rosenthal reviewed these positions in In re Coutts and held that a partial discharge could be granted but that the court could only chose between discharging or not discharging each of the debtor’s individual loans and was without power to alter the terms of the loans. ... I adopt the reasoning and the holding of Coutts.

A partial discharge under § 523(a)(8) requires a threshold finding that repaying the student loans would impose an undue hardship.

Paul v. Suffolk University (In Re Paul) · filed 2006-02-08(a)(8)

The Court is satisfied that a threshold finding that repayment of the student loans imposes an undue hardship before a partial discharge will be considered is consistent with Congressional intent behind 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Therefore, the Debtor is not entitled to a partial discharge because she has not satisfied her burden of demonstrating an undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) does not require courts to use IRS expense standards when deciding whether repaying student loans would impose an undue hardship.

Albee v. U.S. Department of Education (In Re Albee) · filed 2006-02-13(a)(8)

Therefore, while Congress specifically required the courts to utilize the IRS standards in certain places and did make amendments to § 523(a)(8), it did not purport to require the courts to be bound by those standards in making the undue hardship determination. Accordingly, the Court does not consider itself bound by such standards in this context.

Section 523(a)(8) does not require expert medical proof that a debtor’s inability to repay student loans will persist.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Barrett (In Re Barrett) · filed 2006-03-02(a)(8)

There is no per se requirement of expert medical proof implied in the second prong of the Brunner test.

Section 523(a)(8) does not require expert medical proof to establish that a debtor’s inability to repay student loans is likely to persist.

In re: Thom. Barrett v. · filed 2006-03-02(a)(8)

There is no per se requirement of expert medical proof implied in the second prong of the Brunner test.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless repayment would impose an undue hardship on the debtor or the debtor’s dependents.

Shadwick v. United State Department of Education (In Re Shadwick) · filed 2006-03-29(a)(8)

For all the above reasons, the Court finds that repayment of Debtor’s student loan indebtedness to Education and Curators would not impose an undue hardship on Debtor and his dependents pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and it is therefore not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(8) keeps student loan debt from discharge unless the debtor proves undue hardship.

Clark v. United States Department of Education (In Re Clark) · filed 2006-04-11(a)(8)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the debt is not dischargeable under § 523(a)(8) as an undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) makes certain student loans nondischargeable unless the debtor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that repayment would impose undue hardship.

Winsborough v. United States Department of Education (In Re Winsborough) · filed 2006-04-12(a)(8)

Under § 523(a)(8), certain student loans are nondischargeable unless repayment of the loan would impose an undue hardship on the debtor or her dependents. The burden of establishing undue hardship, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the debtor.

Section 523(a)(8) allows student loans to be discharged when excepting them from discharge would cause privation beyond reasonable limits.

Dufresne v. NH Higher Education Assistance Foundation (In Re Dufresne) · filed 2006-04-25(a)(8)

In rendering judgment, based on these facts and circumstances, and in the absence of a eongressionally mandated definition, I employ the ordinary meaning of hardship as privation, a lack of basic life necessities or comforts, and undue hardship as a privation beyond reasonable limits.

Section 523(a)(8) does not require exceptional circumstances beyond a debtor’s present inability to pay and likely inability to pay in the future to establish undue hardship.

Educational Credit Management Corp v. Nys · filed 2006-04-25(a)(8)

The bankruptcy court erred in requiring Nys to show exceptional circumstances beyond the inability to pay in the present and a likely inability to pay in the future.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge student loans for undue hardship to show that an inability to maintain a minimal standard of living while repaying them will continue into the future.

Nash v. Connecticut Student Loan Foundation (In Re Nash) · filed 2006-04-26(a)(8)

Under any test assessing eligibility for discharge of student loan debt, appellant must show that her current inability to maintain a minimal standard of living if forced to repay the debt will continue into the future.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loan debt for undue hardship only if the debtor meets all three parts of the Brunner test, including good-faith efforts to repay.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Spence · filed 2006-05-12(a)(8)

The Court therefore finds that the Bankruptcy Court erred in discharging Ms. Spence’s student loan debt because she has not shown a good faith effort to repay her loans.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking an undue hardship discharge of student loans to affirmatively show good faith efforts to repay them.

Ardis v. Educational Credit Management Corp. · filed 2006-04-06(a)(8)

This is not, however, the relevant standard which requires an affirmative showing of good faith efforts to repay the loan.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of a student loan for undue hardship when the debtor cannot maintain a minimal standard of living while repaying it, the inability to pay is likely to persist, and the debtor has made a good faith effort to repay.

Mendoza v. Educational Credit Management Corp. · filed 2006-05-18(a)(8)

We conclude that on the basis of the record, the bankruptcy court’s factual determination that Mendoza’s inability to pay his student loans will not persist throughout a substantial portion of the repayment period was clearly erroneous.

Section 523(a)(8)’s undue hardship analysis considers the debtor’s age when assessing the ability to repay student loans.

Woody v. United States Department of Justice (In re Woody) · filed 2006-06-16(a)(8)

Age is a relevant factor to be considered in the Brunner analysis.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that repayment would impose undue hardship.

Nelson v. TG Collections & Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. (Nelson) · filed 2006-06-22(a)(8)

The Court finds Debtor has not meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate that she would suffer an undue hardship in repaying her student loans. The Court finds that she has sufficient monthly disposable income and stable employment to repay the loans.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of a student loan when repayment would impose undue hardship, assessed under the totality of the debtor’s circumstances.

Lee v. Regions Bank (In Re Lee) · filed 2006-07-06(a)(8)

In the Eighth Circuit, the test for undue hardship is a three-pronged analysis of the totality of circumstances unique to the particular bankruptcy case. The focus is on the debtor’s past, current and reasonably reliable future financial resources; the reasonable necessary living expenses of the debtor and the debtor’s dependents; and any other relevant facts and circumstances in the bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of a student loan when repayment would impose an undue hardship, assessed in light of the debtor’s financial resources, necessary expenses, and other circumstances.

Morse v. Iowa Student Loan Liquidity Corp. (In Re Morse) · filed 2006-07-10(a)(8)

Considering Morse’s limited disposable income, her employment history and her medical condition, the court finds and concludes that Morse does not have the ability to repay the loan. Excepting the debt from Morse’s discharge would impose an undue hardship, and the debt should be discharged.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loans for undue hardship, which the debtor must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.

Golczewski v. University Accounting Service (In Re Golczewski) · filed 2006-07-14(a)(8)

The debtor must prove the existence of undue hardship by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Applying this standard, since Mr. Golczewski has sufficient current and future financial resources while maintaining a minimal standard of living, his student loan obligations can not be discharged.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge a student loan for undue hardship to show that circumstances preventing repayment will likely persist for a significant portion of the repayment period.

Coatney v. United States Department of Education (In re Coatney) · filed 2006-07-19(a)(8)

Nevertheless, this Court cannot find a “certainty of hopelessness.” Mr. Coatney has a good education, good health, and usable job skills. Mr. Coatney has not met his burden of proof to show that additional circumstances exist indicating that his state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant period of his repayment period.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of a student loan when the debtor proves all three elements of undue hardship by a preponderance of the evidence.

Naylor v. State of New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority (In Re Naylor) · filed 2006-08-18(a)(8)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the Debtor has preponderantly established each of the three elements of the aforesaid Brunner test.

Eligibility for an income contingent repayment plan does not determine whether repaying a student loan would impose an undue hardship under § 523(a)(8).

Cumberworth v. United States Department of Education (In Re Cumberworth) · filed 2006-08-10(a)(8)

Thus, the fact that a debtor may or may not be eligible to take advantage of an income contingent repayment program is not determinative of whether requiring the debtor to repay the student loan constitutes an undue hardship under § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) treats eligibility for an income contingent repayment plan as one factor in deciding whether repaying a student loan would impose undue hardship.

Cumberworth v. Dept. of Education · filed 2006-08-10(a)(8)

Thus, the fact that a debtor may or may not be eligible to take advantage of an income contingent repayment program is not determinative of whether requiring the debtor to repay the student loan constitutes an undue hardship under §523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor proves undue hardship.

Kitterman v. Sallie Mae Servicing, L.P. (In Re Kitterman) · filed 2006-08-30(a)(8)

Accordingly, Debtor is not entitled to discharge his student loans under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge student loans for undue hardship to show that she cannot make the loan payments while maintaining a minimal standard of living.

State University New York-Student Loan Service Center v. Menezes · filed 2006-08-30(a)(8)

Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances test a debtor must, at a minimum, prove that she is unable both to make particular student loan payments and to maintain a minimal standard of living.

Section 523(a)(8) permits an undue hardship discharge of student loans only if the debtor proves every Brunner factor.

Sorber v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. (In Re Sorber) · filed 2006-09-06(a)(8)

If the Debtor fails to prove one of the Brunner elements, the Debtor’s educational loans cannot be discharged.

Section 523(a)(8) allows courts to consider a debtor’s preexisting physical or mental condition when deciding whether repaying student loans would impose an undue hardship.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Curiston · filed 2006-09-28(a)(8)

Therefore, any assessment of hopelessness and undue hardship under § 523(a)(8) requires consideration of all facts and circumstances, including whether the debtor suffers from a preexisting condition that now renders her incapable of maintaining for a substantial portion of the repayment period a minimal standard of living if forced to repay her student loans.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts an education loan from discharge when the debtor fails to prove good faith efforts to repay it under the undue hardship test.

McNemar v. Student Loan Servicing Center (In Re McNemar) · filed 2006-09-28(a)(8)

The Debt- or’s failure to make any payments on the obligation for over ten years, despite the financial ability to do so, demonstrates a lack of good faith under the applicable Fourth Circuit jurisprudence. Consequently, the Debtor has failed to carry her burden of proof as to the third prong. The Debtor is not entitled to discharge her student loans.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge when repayment does not impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents.

Thornton v. U.S. Department of Education (In Re Thornton) · filed 2006-09-28(a)(8)

For the reasons stated herein, the court finds that repayment of the student loans does not constitute an undue hardship and the loans are excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Under § 523(a)(8), failure to make payments, economize, and seek a reduced repayment plan can together show a lack of good faith in seeking a student loan hardship discharge.

Salyer v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp. (In Re Salyer) · filed 2006-08-31(a)(8)

To summarize, the debtors’ failure to make any payment on their student loan debt, to economize and to seek a reduced payment plan through The William D. Ford Program income contingent repayment plan, in combination demonstrate their lack of good faith.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking an undue-hardship discharge of student loans to show good faith efforts to repay them.

Educational Credit Management Corporation v. Mason · filed 2006-09-28(a)(8)

We conclude that, like the debtor in In re Biranne, Mason has not met his burden of establishing good faith in attempting to pay back the student loans.

Section 523(a)(8) requires an individualized undue hardship determination; an income contingent repayment plan is one factor and does not foreclose discharge.

Lee v. Regions Bank Student Loans (In Re Lee) · filed 2006-09-26(a)(8)

Placing too much weight on the ICRP would have the effect in many cases of displacing the individualized determination of undue hardship mandated by Congress in § 523(a)(8) since the payments on a student loan will almost always be affordable, i.e., not impose an undue hardship on a Debtor.

The availability of an income contingent repayment plan is one factor in determining undue hardship under § 523(a)(8), but it does not bar discharge of a student loan.

Lee v. SLGF · filed 2006-09-26(a)(8)

Placing too much weight on the ICRP would have the effect in many cases of displacing the individualized determination of undue hardship mandated by Congress in § 523(a)(8) since the payments on a student loan will almost always be affordable, i.e., not impose an undue hardship on a Debtor.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor proves that repayment would impose an undue hardship on the debtor or dependents.

Poe v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (In Re Poe) · filed 2006-11-08(a)(8)

For the reasons set forth below, I find that the Debtor has not satisfied her burden of proving that repayment of the debts owed to ECMC would impose an undue hardship upon her and that they are, therefore, excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loans when repayment would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents.

Neal v. New Hampshire Higher Education Assistance Foundation (In Re Neal) · filed 2006-11-28(a)(8)

The Court holds that excepting the student loan debts from discharge would impose an undue hardship on the Debtors, and, therefore, Mrs. Neal’s student loan debts will be discharged.

Section 523(a)(8) does not permit discharge of a student loan when the debtor can make payments with modest cuts to expenses and has promising future income prospects.

In Re Brunell · filed 2006-12-08(a)(8)

But because her current income and expenses necessary to provide for herself and her children, with some small adjustments to her expenses, demonstrate that she holds a surplus from which a monthly payment toward her student loan obligations can be made, I do not find that she face an undue hardship should she be required to pay her student loan.

Section 523(a)(8) makes student loans presumptively nondischargeable unless the debtor proves that repayment would impose undue hardship.

In Re Triplett · filed 2006-12-19(a)(8)

Because Section 523(a)(8) creates a presumption of nondischargeability, the burden of establishing that student loans are dischargeable falls upon the debtor. ... For the foregoing reasons, the debtor's request for a discharge of her student loans based on undue hardship is denied.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of a student loan when repayment would impose an undue hardship on the debtor.

Denittis v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Denittis) · filed 2007-01-18(a)(8)

For the foregoing reasons the Court finds that repayment of the Debtor’s student loan would impose an undue hardship and thus should be discharged under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) makes student loans nondischargeable unless the debtor proves that repayment would impose an undue hardship.

Sperazza v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Sperazza) · filed 2007-01-22(a)(8)

The student loan obligations held by defendant ECMC are not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) because repayment by the plaintiff would not constitute an undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless repayment would impose an undue hardship on the debtor or the debtor’s dependents.

McLaughlin v. U.S. Funds (In Re McLaughlin) · filed 2007-01-24(a)(8)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Debtors have not satisfied their burden of proving that repayment of the debts owed to Education and ECMC would impose an undue hardship upon them and that they are, therefore, excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loan debt when excepting it from discharge would impose an undue hardship on the debtor.

Dykstra v. Spellings (In Re Dykstra) · filed 2007-02-23(a)(8)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the student loan debt imposes an undue hardship on the Debtor and, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), the debt will be discharged.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loans when the debtor proves undue hardship by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hamilton v. U.S. Department of Education (In Re Hamilton) · filed 2007-03-05(a)(8)

David has satisfied his burden of proof under § 523(a)(8) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loan debt only when the debtor meets the undue hardship standard.

Educational Credit v. Steiger · filed 2007-03-09(a)(8)

Applying Frushour, we find that Steiger has not met the undue hardship standard for discharge of a student loan debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) (2000).

Section 523(a)(8) requires a showing of undue hardship to discharge student loan debt.

Steiger v. Educational Credit Management Corp. · filed 2007-03-09(a)(8)

Applying Frushour, we find that Steiger has not met the undue hardship standard for discharge of a student loan debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) (2000).

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loans when excepting them from discharge would impose undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents.

Douglas v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Douglas) · filed 2007-03-14(a)(8)

The Court, having carefully considered the evidence presented at the hearing, the argument of counsel, the brief submitted, and the applicable statutory and case law, holds that, consistent with the reasoning set forth below, excepting Debtor’s student loan debt from discharge would impose an undue hardship upon Debtor and her dependent son.

Section 523(a)(8)’s undue hardship inquiry includes the income of a debtor’s spouse when assessing the debtor’s ability to repay student loans.

Gizzi v. Educational Credit Management Corp. · filed 2007-02-23(a)(8)

As a matter of law, the Bankruptcy Court should have considered her husband’s income when evaluating her financial situation.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor proves undue hardship under all three elements of the Brunner test.

Lykoudis v. Florida Department of Education (In Re Lykoudis) · filed 2007-03-22(a)(8)

The Court has applied the three elements of the Brunner test to the Debtor’s circumstances, and finds that the student loan obligations owed by the Debtor to the Defendants are not dischargeable under § 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a student loan debtor seeking an undue hardship discharge to show that the inability to repay is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Pratt (In Re Pratt) · filed 2007-03-26(a)(8)

The second prong of the Brunner test asks if “additional circumstances exist indicating that this [current] state of affairs is likely to persist” for a significant portion of the repayment period. ... Therefore, considering that the debtor’s income should increase and her expenses should decrease in the near future, the Court concludes that there are not additional circumstances justifying a discharge of this student loan.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge when the debtor fails to prove that repayment would impose undue hardship.

Congdon v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Congdon) · filed 2007-03-29(a)(8)

The Court therefore declares Plaintiffs student loans are excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and will enter an order denying Plaintiff relief and granting judgment in favor of the Defendant.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking an undue hardship discharge of student loans to show persistent financial hardship and a good faith effort to repay.

Morrow v. United States Dept. of Education (In Re Morrow) · filed 2007-04-02(a)(8)

In the final analysis then, since the Debtor failed to make any voluntary payments on her loan obligations, or make a good faith effort to negotiate a payment plan, it is the finding of this Court that the Debtor has failed to sustain her burden under the third prong of the Brunner Test. Consequently, for this reason, together with her failure to sustain her burden under the second prong of the Brunner Test, the Debtor is not entitled to an “undue hardship” discharge of her student-loan debts.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a partial discharge of student loans only if the debtor proves undue hardship as to the portion discharged, including a good faith effort to repay.

Fields v. Sallie Mae Services Corp. (In Re Fields) · filed 2007-04-05(a)(8)

Further, however, we hold that the bankruptcy court erred in finding that Fields had demonstrated a good faith effort to repay any portion of her student loans. And finally, because Brunner requires the debtor to demonstrate all three prongs in order to support a claim of undue hardship, see, e.g., Oyler, 397 F.3d at 385-86 (holding that because Oyler had failed the second prong of the Brunner test, he had failed to demonstrate undue hardship under that test), and because we have held that the debtor must prove undue hardship at least as to the portion of the debt discharged, see Miller, 377 F.3d at 624, we hold that the bankruptcy court erred in granting equitable relief under § 105(a) and discharging a portion of Fields’s debt to ECMC.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge a student loan for undue hardship to prove every prong of the undue hardship test.

Fabrizio v. U.S. Department of Education Borrower Services Department Direct Loans (In Re Fabrizio) · filed 2007-04-25(a)(8)

Since the Brunner § 523(a)(8) undue hardship test requires all three prongs to be independently proven in order for its application to result in the discharge of a student loan obligation, because of the above finding, it is unnecessary to review the applicability of the remaining elements of the test.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that repayment would impose an undue hardship.

May v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (In Re May) · filed 2007-04-25(a)(8)

A debtor who desires to discharge student loan debt must show by a preponderance of the evidence that repayment of those loans would impose an undue hardship upon her. This Debtor simply has not met that burden.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a partial discharge of student loans if the debtor proves undue hardship as to the portion discharged, even when earning capacity is expected to improve.

Carnduff v. United States Department of Education (In Re Carnduff) · filed 2007-03-30(a)(8)

We publish to emphasize that the bankruptcy court has the power to grant a partial discharge of student loans even when the debtor’s earning capacity is expected to improve, if that improvement will be insufficient for the debtor to pay the full balance due without an undue hardship. However, in that event, the burden of proof remains with the debtor to establish undue hardship as to any portion of the debt to be discharged.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking an undue hardship discharge of a student loan to show good faith repayment efforts; declining an affordable consolidation plan without a satisfactory explanation defeats that showing.

Russotto v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In re Russotto) · filed 2007-04-05(a)(8)

The Debtor offered no satisfactory explanation for why she had not pursued consolidation under the Ford Program nor any evidence to contradict ECMC’s assertion that the loan could be maintained in a current status for a payment of $39.38 a month. The Debtor has thus failed to demonstrate to the Court that she has met the good faith requirement of the Brunner test.

Section 523(a)(8) treats income-contingent repayment as one factor in deciding whether student loan debt imposes undue hardship.

Jesperson v. U.S. Department of Education (In Re Jesperson) · filed 2007-04-16(a)(8)

To date though, § 523(a)(8) remains effective, even as modified by BAPCPA 2005. The ICRP is but one of the totality of circumstances material to the § 523(a)(8) inquiry.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loans for undue hardship, and a debtor may corroborate a health-based claim without expert medical testimony.

In re: Thom. Barrett v. · filed 2007-06-08(a)(8)

Medical bills, letters from treating physicians, and other indicia of medical treatment aside from medical records or expert medical testimony may corroborate a debtor’s claim of undue hardship based on the debtor’s health.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a partial discharge of student debt when the discharged portion meets the undue hardship test.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Mandighomi · filed 2007-06-08(a)(8)

Bankruptcy courts are permitted to discharge a portion of a student debt if that portion meets the “undue hardship” test of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) (2002).

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that repayment would impose undue hardship.

Loftus v. Sallie Mae Servicing (In Re Loftus) · filed 2007-06-29(a)(8)

This section provides that a Chapter 7 discharge does not discharge educational loans unless excepting the debt from discharge would impose an undue hardship on the debtors and the debtors’ dependents. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Loftuses bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that their circumstances warrant a discharge of the loans on the basis of undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) does not require a debtor to enter an income contingent repayment plan to establish good faith for an undue hardship discharge of student loans.

King v. Vermont Student Assistance Corp. (In Re King) · filed 2007-05-11(a)(8)

ECMC’s policy argument is eloquent, but it does not carry the day. First, this Court has held that failure to seek out loan consolidation options, such as the ICRP program, is not sufficient, in and' of itself, to justify a finding that King lacked good faith.

Section 523(a)(8)'s good faith inquiry cannot be resolved solely by a debtor's failure to consider or participate in an income contingent repayment plan.

Hooker v. Educational Credit Management Corp. · filed 2007-05-14(a)(8)

However, his failure to consider or participate in the income contingent repayment plan should not be dispositive alone. Accordingly, the court remands this case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loan debt when repayment would impose an undue hardship, including when the debtor’s future resources cannot cover repayment while maintaining a minimal standard of living.

Robbins v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Robbins) · filed 2007-07-09(a)(8)

The Debtor’s reasonable future financial resources are inadequate to cover payment of the student loan debt while allowing for a minimal standard of living. Therefore, this Court finds that the Debtor’s student loan debt shall be discharged.

Section 523(a)(8)’s undue hardship exception does not allow a debtor to choose not to work and then claim that repaying student loans would be an undue hardship.

Jones v. Bank One Texas · filed 2007-08-13(a)(8)

The Court finds that it would follow that the Bankruptcy Code also does not suggest that a debtor may choose not to work at all, and then claim that it would be an undue hardship to repay her student loans.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loans when repayment would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents.

Santamassino v. New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority (In Re Santamassino) · filed 2007-08-23(a)(8)

Therefore, the Court declares the Plaintiffs student loans to the Defendant ... to be discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and will enter an order granting judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a partial discharge of student loans only after the debtor establishes undue hardship.

Davis v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Davis) · filed 2007-07-19(a)(8)

Because there was no finding of undue hardship, it was also improper for the Bankruptcy Court to consider a partial discharge, under either § 523(a)(8) or pursuant to its equitable authority under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).

Section 523(a)(8) does not require independent medical evidence to corroborate credible testimony that medical conditions prevent a debtor from repaying student loans.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Mosley (In Re Mosley) · filed 2007-08-09(a)(8)

We are persuaded by Barrett and decline to adopt a rule requiring Mosley to submit independent medical evidence to corroborate his testimony that his depression and back problems were additional circumstances likely to render him unable to repay his student loans.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loans for undue hardship only if the debtor proves an inability to maintain a minimal standard of living while repaying, a hardship likely to persist, and good faith efforts to repay.

Clement v. United States Department of Education (In Re Clement) · filed 2007-09-14(a)(8)

The issue before the Court is whether the Debtor’s student loan obligations owed to the Illinois Designated Account Purchase Program (“IDAPP”) should be discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) because requiring payment of those loans would impose an undue hardship on the Debtor and her dependents. For the reasons set forth below, this Court finds that the Debtor failed to meet her burden of proof on the elements of undue hardship and that her student loans owed to IDAPP are non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a partial discharge of student loan debt only after a finding of undue hardship.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Young · filed 2007-09-28(a)(8)

Allowing a partial discharge in the absence of a finding of undue hardship pursuant to Section 523(a)(8) would be contrary to that tenet.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless repayment would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents.

Collins v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Collins) · filed 2007-10-01(a)(8)

The student loan debts of Matthew E. Collins owing to creditor Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC), in the approximate amount of $117,074.53 plus interest, do not constitute an undue hardship pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), and are accordingly nondischargeable and are excepted from the general discharge entered in main case BKY 06-30822.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor proves undue hardship under all three factors of the Brunner test.

Matthews-Hamad v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Matthews-Hamad) · filed 2007-11-08(a)(8)

To discharge a student loan debt under section 523(a)(8), a debtor must prove that excepting such loans from discharge would pose an undue hardship. In determining what constitutes an undue hardship, the Debtor must satisfy all three factors of the Brunner test.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge student loans for undue hardship to show an inability to maintain a minimal standard of living while repaying, likely persistence of that hardship, and good faith efforts to repay.

Dewey v. Sallie Mae, Inc. (In Re Dewey) · filed 2008-01-10(a)(8)

Dr. Dewey has further failed to make a showing sufficient to raise genuine issues for trial as to the first two prongs of the Brunner test necessary to demonstrate that repayment of his student loans would impose an undue hardship upon him. His failure to pursue any alternate employment together with his failure to pursue a competent declaration that his medical condition prevents him from working and is expected to continue to do so for the foreseeable future indicates that his student loans may not be discharged.

Section 523(a)(8) does not permit an undue hardship discharge of student loans when the debtor has sufficient income to make payments.

Gitsch v. Iowa Student Loan Liquidity Corp. (In Re Gitsch) · filed 2008-02-25(a)(8)

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Debtor is not entitled to an “undue hardship” discharge of his student loans under § 523(a)(8). Debtor lives frugally and has a modest income and reasonable expenses.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loan debt from discharge when the debtor fails to prove undue hardship.

Tyer v. SLM Corp. (In Re Tyer) · filed 2008-03-24(a)(8)

FURTHER, the student loan debt owed to Education Credit Management Corp. is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge education loans for undue hardship to show a good faith effort to repay them.

O'Neal v. Education Resources Institute (In Re O'Neal) · filed 2008-03-31(a)(8)

Here the Court need not address the first and second factors of the Brunner test because Debtor has not demonstrated any good faith effort to repay the loan.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that excepting them would impose an undue hardship.

Lee v. Spellings (In Re Lee) · filed 2008-04-16(a)(8)

Debtor has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that excepting his student loans from discharge will impose an undue hardship on him. ... FURTHER, the student loan debt owed to the Department of Education is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor to prove undue hardship to discharge student loans.

DeBrower v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (DeBrower) · filed 2008-05-09(a)(8)

In summary, the Court finds that Debtor has failed to meet the high standard of proof required to discharge her student loans for undue hardship under § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge a student loan for undue hardship to show that the inability to repay is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period.

Ostrom v. Educational Credit Management Corp. · filed 2008-06-26(a)(8)

Based on this record evidence, the bankruptcy court plausibly concluded that Ostrom had not demonstrated that his current financial state would continue well into the future, so it did not clearly err in finding that Ostrom had not fulfilled the second Brunner prong.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge student loans for undue hardship to show a good faith effort to repay them.

Robinson v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Robinson) · filed 2008-07-08(a)(8)

For these reasons, the court finds that the plaintiff has failed to establish that she has made a good faith effort to repay her student loan indebtedness under the third prong of the Brunner analysis. Accordingly, the court finds in favor of ECMC and against the plaintiff on her adversary complaint seeking discharge of such indebtedness under § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) prevents discharge of student loans unless the debtor proves undue hardship, including a lasting inability to repay and good faith efforts to do so.

Jones v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Jones) · filed 2008-07-22(a)(8)

In summary, after reviewing the testimony and the documentary evidence offered at trial, I conclude that Mr. Jones has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that repaying his student loans imposes an undue hardship upon him pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loans for undue hardship only when the debtor proves the required factors, including persistent inability to repay and good faith repayment efforts.

Spence v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Spence) · filed 2008-07-30(a)(8)

We conclude that Ms. Spence has not met her burden to demonstrate either additional circumstances rendering her situation hopeless or that she has made a good faith effort to repay her loans.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge student loans for undue hardship to prove all three elements of the undue hardship test by a preponderance of the evidence.

Armstrong v. Access Group (In Re Armstrong) · filed 2008-09-16(a)(8)

A debtor must prove all three elements of the test by a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail in an action under § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loans for undue hardship only when the debtor satisfies all three factors of the undue hardship test.

Spence v. Educational Credit Management · filed 2008-09-18(a)(8)

Accordingly, the bankruptcy court erred in concluding that Ms. Spence demonstrated an undue hardship that entitled her to the discharge of her student loans. We affirm the judgment of the district court and hold that Ms. Spence’s student loans held by ECMC are not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge student loans, in whole or in part, to prove undue hardship under all three Brunner elements.

Grant v. USA, Dept. of Ed. (In Re Grant) · filed 2008-10-08(a)(8)

Based upon these considerations, the Court is unable to find that the Plaintiff acted with the requisite good faith to sustain her burden under the third prong of the Brunner Test. Similarly, for the reasons set forth earlier, the Court is unable to conclude that the Plaintiff has sustained her burden under either the first or second prong of the Brunner Test. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not established the existence of “undue hardship” and thus her student-loan obligations to the Defendants are nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) bars discharge of student loans unless the debtor shows undue hardship, including good-faith efforts to repay.

Roe v. College Access Network · filed 2008-10-09(a)(8)

Consequently, she fails to satisfy the third element of the Brunner test and cannot show an undue hardship. Thus, her student loans are not subject to discharge.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loan debt when the debtor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that excepting it from discharge would impose an undue hardship.

Mabry v. U.S. Department of Education National Payment Center (In Re Mabry) · filed 2008-11-21(a)(8)

Given the totality of this evidentiary record, the Court finds that Mabry established by a preponderance of the evidence that excepting his student loan obligations from his discharge would impose an undue hardship on him as provided in § 523(a)(8) of the Code.

Section 523(a)(8) requires courts to assess undue hardship loan by loan, allowing some student loans to be discharged while others remain nondischargeable.

Marie v. Citibank NA (In Re Groves) · filed 2008-11-21(a)(8)

Bankruptcy courts are required to analyze a debtor’s student loans, and make a determination of nondis-chargeability of them, on a loan-by-loan basis. ... The only way to reduce that payment to an amount that she could reasonably be expected to pay on the assumed level of income would be to discharge some, but not all, of the ECMC loans.

Section 523(a)(8) requires courts to assess whether student loans impose an undue hardship; eligibility for an income-contingent repayment plan is relevant but not determinative.

Halverson v. U.S. Department of Education (In Re Halverson) · filed 2009-02-12(a)(8)

The task 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) places before a court is to determine whether the loans are an undue hardship for the plaintiff, not whether the ICRP payments are an undue hardship. With or without the ICRP, I find that they are an undue hardship. The ICRP may considered by courts in the analysis of undue hardship, but it is not determinative.

Section 523(a)(8) places the burden on a debtor seeking to discharge student loans for undue hardship; excessive rent and discretionary spending can defeat that showing.

Johnson v. Access Group, Inc. (In Re Johnson) · filed 2009-03-10(a)(8)

In light of Debtor’s failure to justify her excessive rent and unnecessary consumer spending habits, I conclude that Debtor has failed to carry the burden of proof imposed on her by section 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) does not require an undue hardship finding to determine the amount of interest owed on a nondischargeable student loan.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Kirkland · filed 2009-03-10(a)(8)

Because the Bankruptcy Court’s factual determination that Kirkland owed $184.40 in post-petition interest in addition to principal was not clearly erroneous, and because the Bankruptcy Court did not need to make a finding of undue hardship before determining the interest that was owed, I affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s decision regarding post-petition interest.

Section 523(a)(8) permits an undue hardship determination before a Chapter 13 debtor completes plan payments when the record is sufficiently developed.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Coleman (In Re Coleman) · filed 2009-03-25(a)(8)

We disagree with the Eighth Circuit’s conclusion that bankruptcy courts should not make an undue hardship determination until the time of discharge because “the factual question is whether there is undue hardship at the time of discharge, not whether there is undue hardship at the time that a § 523(a)(8) proceeding is commenced.”

Section 523(a)(8) does not permit an undue hardship discharge of student loans based on age and inability to find a teaching job alone.

Nelsen v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Nelsen) · filed 2009-04-30(a)(8)

Mrs. Nelsen’s only “problems” are her age, and her inability to find a teaching job. These are not sufficient to meet the undue hardship test.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor proves undue hardship under all three Brunner factors.

Campton v. United States Department of Education (In Re Campton) · filed 2009-05-05(a)(8)

In conclusion, the Court, for all these reasons, cannot find that the Debtor has sustained his evidentiary burden with respect to the three prongs of the Brunner Test. As such, the Court is unable to find that the Debtor qualifies for an “undue hardship” discharge of his educational debt under § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8)’s undue hardship exception allows a debtor to show good faith despite unsuccessful repayment efforts when circumstances outside the debtor’s control caused that lack of success.

Coco v. New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority · filed 2009-05-22(a)(8)

Although her efforts to repay her loans have been largely unsuccessful, it appears that this lack of success has been caused by factors outside of her control. Accordingly, we conclude that Coco has made a sufficient showing of good faith to survive summary judgment.

Section 523(a)(8) treats eligibility for income-contingent repayment as one factor in deciding whether student loan debt imposes an undue hardship.

Brooks v. Education Credit Management Corporation (In Re Brooks) · filed 2009-05-20(a)(8)

For the above reasons, this Court follows the weight of the authority in this circuit and holds that the ICRP is only one of many factors for consideration under the Eighth Circuit’s well-established totality of the circumstances test. Eligibility for the ICRP is not dispositive and must be considered in light of each individual debtor’s unique situation.

Eligibility for income-contingent repayment is one factor in determining undue hardship, but does not bar discharge of an educational loan.

Walker v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp. (In Re Walker) · filed 2009-06-18(a)(8)

First, as held repeatedly in local case law, a current eligibility for the ICRP is not determinative of the issue of undue hardship under § 523(a)(8); it is only one factor in the totality of the circumstances.

Section 523(a)(8) does not allow an undue hardship discharge when a debtor can make income contingent student loan payments while maintaining a minimal standard of living.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Jesperson · filed 2009-07-08(a)(8)

If the debtor with the help of an ICRP program can make student loan repayments while still maintaining a minimal standard of living, the absence of a fresh start is not undue hardship.

A debtor’s refusal to enter an alternative repayment plan does not by itself establish a lack of good faith for a student loan undue hardship discharge.

Benjumen v. AES/Charter Bank (In Re Benjumen) · filed 2009-07-20(a)(8)

While a debtor’s failure to take advantage of alternative repayment plans may be a significant factor in determining whether or not the debtor made a good faith effort to repay his or her loans, “there is no per se rule that failure to agree to an [alternative repayment] plan establishes bad faith.”

Section 523(a)(8) allows courts to consider IRS expense standards when assessing undue hardship, but those standards do not determine whether a debtor can maintain a minimal standard of living.

Miller v. Sallie Mae, Inc. (In Re Miller) · filed 2009-07-22(a)(8)

The IRS expense standards (and means testing methodology) may be helpful in providing the court with a frame of reference for evaluating the debtor’s expenses, but they cannot be determinative on the question whether the debtor’s is living at, below or above a minimal standard of living.

For pre-BAPCPA cases, § 523(a)(8) calls for a case-by-case assessment of whether voluntary retirement contributions are necessary expenses when evaluating undue hardship.

Craig v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Craig) · filed 2009-08-26(a)(8)

Because Craig’s case was decided on April 27, 2005, before BAPCPA went into effect on October 17, 2005, we therefore hold the test in Hebbring for determining whether a voluntary 401(k) contribution is a reasonably necessary expense to be viable and applicable to the pre-BAPCPA determination of whether Craig’s 401(k) contribution is an expense reasonably necessary to maintain a minimal standard of living.

A zero monthly payment under an income contingent repayment plan does not prevent a debtor from proving undue hardship and obtaining a student loan discharge.

Booth v. U.S. Department of Education (In Re Booth) · filed 2009-08-31(a)(8)

Holding that an administrative decision to temporarily defer monthly repayments precludes application of the statutory undue hardship standards usurps the Bankruptcy Code.

A debtor seeking to discharge student loans for undue hardship must prove that circumstances beyond the debtor’s control are likely to keep the hardship from improving.

Rhodes v. Connecticut Student Loan Foundation & Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Rhodes) · filed 2009-10-08(a)(8)(B)

The Court finds that, even though the Debtor’s present circumstances have satisfied the first prong of the Brunner test, he has not met his burden of proving the existence of additional circumstances, beyond his control, that would satisfy the second prong.

Section 523(a)(8) requires courts to give weight to income contingent repayment eligibility when deciding undue hardship, without treating eligibility as decisive.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Bronsdon · filed 2009-11-20(a)(8)

The decision whether to discharge in a case where a debtor is eligible but declines to participate in the ICRP must be the result of an individualized analysis in which the ICRP is given weight but for which no particular outcome is prescribed.

Section 523(a)(8) requires the circumstances causing a chapter 7 debtor’s undue hardship to arise before discharge for them to justify discharging a student loan.

Zygarewicz v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Zygarewicz) · filed 2010-01-15(a)(8)

The court concludes that the circumstances causing a chapter 7 debtor’s financial hardship must arise prior to the entry of the discharge. If the circumstances causing a debtor’s hardship arise after the entry of a discharge, those circumstances cannot form the basis of a determination that repayment of a student loan will be an undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge when the debtor cannot show that an inability to repay will persist for a significant portion of the repayment period or that he made good faith efforts to repay.

Buckland v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Buckland) · filed 2010-02-12(a)(8)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the student loan debt owed by Mr. Buckland to ECMC should be excepted from Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Although the Court finds that Debtor cannot repay the student loan debt and maintain a minimal standard of living at this time, the Court also finds that Debtor’s current financial situation is not likely to (and need not) continue for a significant portion of the repayment period of these student loans, and that Mr. Buck-land has not made a good faith effort to maximize his income, or to repay the loans.

Section 523(a)(8) requires findings on each of the three Brunner factors when a court assesses whether repaying student loans would impose undue hardship.

Hedlund v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency · filed 2010-03-02(a)(8)

In these circumstances, we believe that the proper and equitable course is to remand this proceeding for the bankruptcy court to reconsider all of the evidence in light of the Brunner test,2 and to make more complete findings on each of the three factors under the Brunner test so as to facilitate appellate review of whether Hedlund has met the “undue hardship” requirement of § 523(a)(8).