11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(8) student loan dischargeability must be determined through an adversary proceeding, not through a provision in a Chapter 13 plan.

In Re Galey · filed 1999-02-08(a)(8)

For the reasons which follow, I hold that the Debtor may not obtain this relief pursuant to a plan provision, but must file an adversary proceeding.

Section 523(a)(8) requires evidence supporting discharge of a student loan; a Chapter 13 plan provision cannot establish dischargeability through confirmation alone.

In Re Hinton · filed 1999-03-18(a)(8)

As is thoroughly discussed in In re Mammel, 221 B.R. 238 (Bankr.N.D.Iowa 1998), to permit the Debtors to discharge their student loan obligation in this manner would: (1) allow a debtor to discharge an obligation through the confirmation process, circumventing Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001 which provides that an adversary proceeding must be filed to determine the dischargeability of a debt, id. at 241; (2) allow the discharge of debts without satisfying the evidentiary elements of Section 523(a)(8), id.; and (3) permit flexible plan formulation outside the parameters of specific Code provisions, id. at 241-42.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a student loan hardship discharge only when undue hardship is established in an adversary proceeding.

In Re Evans · filed 1999-06-17(a)(8)

Clearly, the issue of § 523(a)(8) debt dischargeability must be framed and decided in an adversary proceeding pursuant to Rule 7001(6), Fed.R.Bank.P.

Section 523(a)(8) prevents a debtor from discharging a student loan through a Chapter 13 claim objection that reduces the allowed claim.

Bell v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Bell) · filed 1999-06-28(a)(8)

To allow a debtor to override the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and discharge student loans through a claim objection would abrogate the clear intent of the bankruptcy code to make student loans nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor to prove undue hardship to discharge a student loan; a chapter 13 plan cannot establish hardship merely by declaring it.

In Re Evans · filed 1999-11-17(a)(8)

Specifically, these student loan provisions violate the substantive requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) in that the Debtor is not required to prove undue hardship or even experience circumstances that would support such a finding.

Section 523(a)(8) generally excepts government guaranteed student loans from discharge unless the debtor establishes undue hardship in an adversary proceeding.

In Re Webber · filed 2000-08-09(a)(8)

Government guaranteed student loan debts are generally not dischargeable unless failure to discharge them would pose an “undue hardship” on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). ... I concur that such student loan discharge provisions are not permissible in a chapter 13 plan or in an order confirming the plan.

Section 523(a)(8)’s undue hardship determination depends on the debtor’s circumstances at discharge, so a court cannot decide it when discharge is remote and speculative.

Soler v. United States Ex Rel. United States Department of Health & Human Services (In Re Soler) · filed 2000-07-20(a)(8)

For example, under § 523(a)(8) a student loan will be discharged if excepting it from the debtor’s discharge would constitute an undue hardship. ... Thus, any trial must occur after the discharge or at least close enough in time to the discharge to enable the parties to present competent evidence for the court to make a determination of the debtor’s situation as of the date of the discharge.

Section 523(a)(8) requires courts to assess undue hardship for each student loan individually; it does not authorize splitting a single loan into dischargeable and nondischargeable parts.

Coutts v. Massachusetts Higher Education Corp. (In Re Coutts) · filed 2001-06-15(a)(8)

Therefore, this Court holds that the proper analysis is not a true “partial” discharge in the sense of splitting a single or aggregate loans into dischargeable and non-dischargeable parts, but instead to apply the prevailing undue hardship test used by this Court to each individual loan to determine whether a hardship exists for the debtor to pay such loan.

In a Chapter 13 case, a § 523(a)(8) undue hardship complaint is premature early in the plan and may be refiled no earlier than six months before the expected discharge.

Pair v. United States (In Re Pair) · filed 2001-11-14(a)(8)

The debtor’s complaint is not ripe for adjudication and is due to be dismissed without prejudice to file same no earlier than six months before the debtor’s discharge is due to be entered if the facts of the case warrant a complaint under § 523(a)(8) at that time.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a Chapter 13 debtor to seek an undue hardship discharge of student loans before completing the repayment plan.

Education Resources Institute v. Ekenasi (In Re Ekenasi) · filed 2002-01-07(a)(8)

The next alleged errors challenge (1) the decision to address the discharge-ability question during the life of the Chapter 13 plan rather than at the plan’s conclusion, and (2) the putative failure to consider a partial, rather than a complete, discharge. Judge Pearson’s thorough Blankenship opinion addresses the first issue. The Court adopts Judge Pearson’s well-reasoned analysis rejecting the argument.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor to obtain a ruling in an adversary proceeding to discharge a government-funded student loan.

In Re Amos · filed 2002-05-07(a)(8)

To date, no such action has been filed and the Debtor did not dispute ASLC’s indebtedness in the Schedules, Plan, Order of Confirmation or otherwise put the factors of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) into issue so that this Court has made a ruling declaring ASLC’s right to payment dischargeable. Therefore, the debt to ASLC has not been discharged as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor to file an adversary proceeding to seek discharge of student loans.

In Re Tyler · filed 2002-11-19(a)(8)

Section 523(a)(8) requires that a debtor file an adversary proceeding in order to obtain discharge of his student loans.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a showing of undue hardship to discharge student loan debt, and the debtor must give the creditor notice through an adversary proceeding before obtaining that discharge.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Doane (In Re Harig) · filed 2003-10-27(a)(8)

In the context of student loan debt, discharge requires a showing of undue hardship. ... To that end, the debtor must satisfy the heightened notice requirements of an adversary proceeding by filing a complaint and by serving process upon the appropriate creditor-defendant.

Section 523(a)(8) bars a moratorium that effectively discharges student loan interest unless the debtor proves undue hardship.

United States Department of Education v. Blair (In Re Blair) · filed 2003-11-12(a)(8)

Because Appellee failed to prove undue hardship within § 523(a)(8), as the bankruptcy court itself concluded, that court exceeded its equitable authority under § 105(a) in ordering the moratorium.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge a student loan for undue hardship to prove that hardship in an adversary proceeding; a declaration in a Chapter 13 plan does not suffice.

Ruehle v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Ruehle) · filed 2004-03-17(a)(8)

In this case, the Debtor attempted to circumvent the requirements of Bankruptcy Rules 4007 and 7001(6) by discharging her student loan through the above-quoted language in her chapter 13 plan. She further circumvented the requirement that the debtor bear the burden of proving that repayment of the debt would constitute an undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) permits discharge of student loans for undue hardship when additional circumstances show that the debtor’s inability to pay is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period; those circumstances need not be of a particular exceptional type.

Nys v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Nys) · filed 2004-03-30(a)(8)

Additional circumstances are any circumstances, beyond the mere current inability to pay, that show that the inability to pay is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period. The circumstances need be “exceptional” only in the sense that they demonstrate insurmountable barriers to the debtor’s financial recovery and ability to pay.

Section 523(a)(8) requires an undue hardship determination to discharge a student loan debt, but its text does not require a summons.

Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation v. Hood · filed 2004-05-17(a)(8)

The text of § 523(a)(8) does not require a summons, and absent Rule 7001(6) a debtor could proceed by motion, see Rule 9014 (“[I]n a contested matter . . . not otherwise governed by these rules, relief shall be requested by motion”), which would raise no constitutional concern.

Section 523(a)(8) places the initial burden on the creditor to prove a qualifying educational loan, then shifts the burden to the debtor to prove undue hardship.

Rutherford v. William D. Ford Direct Loan Program (In Re Rutherford) · filed 2004-05-24(a)(8)

The creditor opposing discharge-ability of a student loan debt has the initial burden of proving the existence of the debt. The creditor must prove that there is a debt and that the debt is for an educational 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. If the creditor meets that burden, the burden shifts to the debtor to prove undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) requires undue hardship to be assessed at the time of discharge, though the proceeding may begin relatively close to that date.

Lee E. J. Bender v. Educational Credit · filed 2004-05-12(a)(8)

For the reasons that we have already identified, 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) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor establishes undue hardship; a declaration in a Chapter 13 plan does not establish it.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Whelton (In Re Whelton) · filed 2004-08-04(a)(8)

This Court joins the courts that have refused to accord preclusive effect to chapter 13 plan provisions that purport to discharge student loan debts without a factual determination of undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless repayment would impose an undue hardship; general language discharging unsecured claims in a bankruptcy plan does not overcome that exception.

Kaufman v. Case Western Reserve University (In Re Kaufman) · filed 2004-12-08(a)(8)

Without such specific reference, there would have been nothing to overcome § 523's express wording that student loans are excepted from a debtor’s discharged debt.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a showing of undue hardship before student loan debt can be discharged.

Hanson, Craig v. Educational Credit · filed 2005-02-02(a)(8)

The result of the error was that Hanson’s student loan debt was discharged without any showing of undue hardship, which is required by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) prior to the discharge of student loan debt. ... Due to the lack of compliance with the Bankruptcy Code and Rules, the bankruptcy discharge order was void and ECMC was properly granted relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4).

Section 523(a)(8) undue hardship is determined from the debtor’s circumstances at the time of discharge.

Woodcock v. U.S. Department of Education (In Re Woodcock) · filed 2005-03-21(a)(8)

The bankruptcy court made a determination of undue hardship based on information given to it at the time of discharge. The determination of dischargeability is best made at the time of discharge.

A debtor may file a student loan dischargeability complaint under § 523(a)(8) at any time during a Chapter 13 case, including shortly after plan confirmation.

Strahm v. Great Lakes Higher Education Corp. (In Re Strahm) · filed 2005-07-06(a)(8)

A student loan adversary, brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), is not raised under § 523(c) and, accordingly, may be filed at any time.

Section 523(a)(8) does not permit a partial discharge of a student loan unless the debtor proves undue hardship.

Simms v. USA Funds (In Re Simms) · filed 2005-07-14(a)(8)

Having found that no undue hardship exists under the Brunner test, the Court is unable to grant a partial discharge by excusing the interest accruing on the unpaid balance of the student loan.

Section 523(a)(8) leaves student loan debt undischarged unless the debtor establishes undue hardship in an adversary proceeding with proper service on the creditor.

Whelton v. Educational Credit Management Corp. · filed 2005-12-15(a)(8)

Because Whelton failed to serve ECMC and affirmatively establish such undue hardship in an adversary proceeding, his liability on the loan survives the purported discharge.

Section 523(a)(8) requires an undue hardship determination, with notice appropriate to an adversary proceeding, before accrued student loan interest can be discharged.

Sallie Mae Servicing Corp. v. Ransom (In Re Ransom) · filed 2005-12-27(a)(8)

Under the analysis in Enewally, the accrued, unpaid interest was not discharged upon completion of the chapter 13 plan because there was no determination of “undue hardship” following notice of the quality attendant to an adversary proceeding.

Section 523(a)(8) permits an undue hardship determination before a Chapter 13 debtor completes plan payments.

Coleman v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Coleman) · filed 2005-11-23(a)(8)

The issue defined by the statute does not include the italicized words. There is no express statutory prohibition on determining this issue before the discharge is granted.

Section 523(a)(8) does not authorize a court to restructure or reduce a student loan; the court may discharge the obligation only if nondischargeability would impose undue hardship.

Bender v. Van Ru Credit Corp. (In re Bender) · filed 2006-02-09(a)(8)

Accordingly, I conclude that in a dischargeability action pursuant to § 523(a)(8), the Court does not have the authority to restructure or reduce the loan obligation, but only to determine whether a finding of nondischargeability as to the entire obligation would impose an undue hardship on the debtor or the debtor’s dependents.

Section 523(a)(8) allows bona fide tithes and charitable contributions to be considered as expenses under a reasonableness standard when assessing undue hardship.

McLaney v. Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority (In Re McLaney) · filed 2007-09-19(a)(8)

Therefore, bona fide tithing or charitable contributions are to be examined under the same reasonableness standard as other reasonable and necessary expenses under a § 523(a)(8) undue hardship analysis.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a sufficiently developed student loan undue hardship claim to be decided before a Chapter 13 debtor completes plan payments.

Educational Credit v. Coleman · filed 2008-07-31(a)(8)

Applying Abbott, we agree with the Fourth Circuit and with the Ninth Circuit BAP that an undue hardship determina- tion can be ripe substantially in advance of plan completion.

A Chapter 13 debtor’s student loan dischargeability claim is not constitutionally unripe solely because the debtor has not yet received a general discharge.

Cassim v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Cassim) · filed 2008-11-07(a)(8)

For these reasons, the Panel agrees with the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit’s conclusions that there is no constitutional ripeness impediment to the bankruptcy court’s determination of a chapter 13 debtor’s student loan dischargeability claim before a discharge is entered.

A chapter 13 debtor may seek a student loan undue hardship determination under § 523(a)(8) before receiving a general discharge; the possibility that the debtor will not complete the plan does not make the claim constitutionally unripe.

In re: Jennifer Cassim v. · filed 2008-11-07(a)(8)

For these reasons, the Panel agrees with the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit’s conclusions that there is no constitutional ripeness impediment to the bankruptcy court’s determination of a chapter 13 debtor’s student loan dischargeability claim before a discharge is entered.

Section 523(a)(8) requires an undue hardship finding to discharge student loan debt, but a creditor that receives notice of a Chapter 13 plan and fails to object forfeits its right to insist on that finding.

Espinosa v. United Student Funds · filed 2008-10-01(a)(8)

Regardless, when the creditor is served with notice of the proposed plan, it has a full and fair opportunity to insist on the special procedures available to student loan creditors by objecting to the plan on the ground that there has been no undue hardship finding. Rights may, of course, be waived or forfeited, if not raised in a timely fashion.

Section 523(a)(8) protects student loan debt from discharge absent undue hardship, but a creditor with notice can forfeit its right to insist on an undue hardship finding by failing to object to the proposed plan.

Espinosa v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. · filed 2008-12-10(a)(8)

Regardless, when the creditor is served with notice of the proposed plan, it has a full and fair opportunity to insist on the special procedures available to student loan creditors by objecting to the plan on the ground that there has been no undue hardship finding. Rights may, of course, be waived or forfeited, if not raised in a timely fashion.

Section 523(a)(8) allows a debtor to seek an undue hardship determination for a student loan after entry of the discharge order.

Barrett v. Great Lakes (In Re Barrett) · filed 2009-08-11(a)(8)

Consequently, the entry of an order of discharge does not prejudice a debtor’s right to seek a later determination regarding the dischargeability of a student loan.

Section 523(a)(8) generally excludes student loans from a general bankruptcy discharge unless an applicable exception is established.

Queen v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Watkins) · filed 2011-09-27(a)(8)

The dischargeability of the loan at issue was never determined, and a general discharge does not cover generally nondischargeable debts.

Section 523(a)(8) leaves qualifying student loans undischarged when the debtor has not sought a hardship discharge in an adversary proceeding.

Greer v. Healthcare Financial Services, LLC (In re Greer) · filed 2013-08-19(a)(8)

Whitney has not filed an adversary proceeding seeking to have her student loans discharged as an undue hardship. Consequently, by operation of law, her student loans will not be discharged upon completion of her plan payments.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that student loans are dischargeable.

Turturo v. Access Group, Inc. (In re Turturo) · filed 2014-12-18(a)(8)

Debtor bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his student loan debts are dischargeable under § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8)(B) excepts student loan debt from discharge unless the debtor establishes undue hardship.

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 v. Rand · filed 2016-11-29(a)(8)(B)

Because the Smocks admit they did not file an adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability, as required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001(6), the trial court erred in interpreting the Bankruptcy Court’s order as a discharge of the Smocks’ debt to National, if in fact it was a student loan debt. Without the adversary proceeding and finding of undue hardship, the debt was not discharged or otherwise affected by the Smocks’ bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(8)(A)(i) determines whether a student loan is excepted from discharge based on the loan’s conditions when it was made.

Medina v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-3 · filed 2021-07-01(a)(8)(A)(i)

At bottom, the Court’s determination that Section 523(a)(8) dischargeability is determined by the conditions of the loan on the date the loan was made starts and stops with the language of the statute itself.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge student loans for undue hardship to file for bankruptcy and bring an adversary proceeding.

SIMON v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY · filed 2021-10-15(a)(8)

In order to have student loans discharged, the debtor must file a petition for bankruptcy and initiate an adversary proceeding the in the relevant bankruptcy court to determine the dischargeability of his or her student loans under the undue hardship standard set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) generally excepts student loan debt from discharge unless the debtor obtains an undue hardship determination; a finding of indigence alone does not establish undue hardship.

Kaetz v. Educational Credit Management · filed 2022-04-04(a)(8)

Even if an undue hardship determination could have been made in Kaetz’s bankruptcy case outside of an adversary proceeding, a finding of indigence is not the same as an undue hardship determination under § 538(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor to obtain a determination that a student loan is dischargeable; without one, the loan remains nondischargeable.

Roberts v. Firstmark Services · filed 2025-09-18(a)(8)

Under section 523(a)(8), the Debtor was required to do so and also prevail in that adversary proceeding - or that student loan debt is nondischargeable as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(8) leaves student loans nondischargeable until the debtor obtains a determination that they are dischargeable.

Roberts · filed 2025-12-04(a)(8)

In this case, the court has repeatedly held that the burden is on the debtor, not the creditor, to bring an action to dispute the nondischargeability of an educational loan because such loans are nondischargeable by operation of law until the debtor seeks and receives a determination to the contrary.

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

Grabis · filed 2026-01-31(a)(8)(A)

The Consolidation Loans fall within the scope of section 523(a)(8)(A); to establish they are not excepted from discharge, Plaintiff must demonstrate that under Brunner, excepting such loans from discharge would impose an undue hardship on him.

Section 523(a)(8)’s exceptions for educational loan debts need not be pleaded as affirmative defenses.

Oglethorpe University v. McLemore (In re McLemore) · filed 1980-09-23(a)(8)

For several reasons, the court concludes, contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, that neither of the defenses outlined in § 523(a)(8)(A) and § 523(a)(8)(B) constitutes an affirmative defense.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts qualifying student loans from discharge without requiring the creditor to appear or file a complaint.

Massachusetts Higher Education Assistance Corp. v. Taylor · filed 1984-01-11(a)(8)

Because student loans are not discharged automatically under § 523(a)(8), the creditor need not appear at the bankruptcy proceedings and file a complaint for nondischargeability.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts qualifying student loans from a general discharge without requiring the creditor to obtain a bankruptcy-court ruling.

State of New York Higher Education Services Corp. v. Rochlitz · filed 1986-07-11(a)(8)

Under 11 USC § 523, a creditor of a student loan is not required to initiate a proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court for a determination of the nondischarge of the debt in order to prevent the loan from being released by the general discharge of the debtor.

Section 523(a)(8) makes student loans nondischargeable but does not govern a creditor’s claim for post-petition interest when the loan is paid in full from the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Wasson · filed 1993-03-05(a)(8)

Section 523(a)(8) does not govern the issue of post-petition interest on student loans, however, because section 502(b)(2) is the more specific rule which disallows creditors’ claims for unmatured interest.

Section 523(a)(8)(A) treats student loan deferments requested and received by the debtor as applicable suspensions of the repayment period even if regulations did not authorize them.

Huber v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A. (In Re Huber) · filed 1994-03-21(a)(8)(A)

To engraft upon the statutory phrase “exclusive of any applicable suspension of the repayment period” the requirement that any such suspension not later be found to be unauthorized by regulation, is without basis in law.

Section 523(a)(8) provides that debts arising from student loans are not automatically discharged.

In Re Johnson · filed 1983-06-30(a)(8)

Further, we call the attention of the parties to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) which deals with nondischargeability of student loans. It is evident from this provision that debts arising from student loans are not automatically discharged.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loan debt from discharge unless a court of competent jurisdiction determines that it may be discharged.

Perkins v. Coordinating Board for Higher Education (In Re Perkins) · filed 1998-12-10(a)(8)

If a specific determination to the contrary has not been entered in the bankruptcy case, by operation of the Bankruptcy Code the student loan debt is not discharged unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction determines that it is to be discharged pursuant to federal bankruptcy law.

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

In Re Conner · filed 1999-07-30(a)(8)

Pursuant to section 523(a)(8), debtors must demonstrate undue hardship in order to have their student loans discharged.

Section 523(a)(8) makes postpetition interest on a student loan nondischargeable along with the loan, absent undue hardship.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Kielisch · filed 2000-08-10(a)(8)

Although the Code does not explicitly address the dischargeability of postpetition interest on student loans, courts have consistently held that such postpetition interest is considered part of the student loan and is likewise nondischargeable. ... Thus, notwithstanding the June 6, 1997, Order discharging Debtors after completion of their Chapter 13 Plan, Debtors are not discharged from liability for the postpetition interest on their student loan debt.

Section 523(a)(8) presumptively excepts educational loans from discharge, even when the lender’s claim is disallowed.

Cruz v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Cruz) · filed 2000-10-27(a)(8)

Therefore, the court finds that its July 9, 1998 order disallowing ECMC’s claim did not effectuate a discharge of Debtors’ debt to ECMC. Educational loans are presumptively nondischargeable and Debtors will need to file an adversary proceeding to determine the dischargeability of their debt to ECMC.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor obtains an undue hardship determination; the lender need not file a complaint.

Lester E. Cox Medical Centers v. Penn (In Re Penn) · filed 2001-05-24(a)(8)

Moreover, section 523(a)(8) is intended to be self-executing, and the creditor need not file a complaint to determine the non-dischargeability of any student loan.

A Chapter 13 plan cannot establish undue hardship and discharge a student loan under § 523(a)(8) without an adversary proceeding.

In Re Cushman · filed 2001-06-15(a)(8)

Consequently, we will not knowingly confirm a plan that attempts to circumvent the appropriate procedures for a determination of dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

A debtor sufficiently pleads a Section 523(a)(8) undue hardship claim by requesting discharge of educational loans due to hardship.

Barton v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Barton) · filed 2001-09-13(a)(8)

Requesting that the educational loans be discharge due to hardship is sufficient notice to ECMC of a § 523(a)(8) issue.

Section 523(a)(8) presumes student loans are nondischargeable unless the debtor obtains a determination that the debt is dischargeable.

Jordon v. Norfolk State University (In Re Jordon) · filed 2002-03-12(a)(8)

This court interprets § 523(a)(8) to mean that student loans are presumed nondischargeable and without a determination to the contrary, such loans are excepted from the discharge. The onus is placed on the debtor to seek an affirmative determination that the student loan is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor seeking to discharge a student loan for undue hardship to prove that hardship.

Pearson v. U.S. Department of Education (In Re Pearson) · filed 2002-05-21(a)(8)

A Chapter 13 discharge does not discharge a student loan unless repayment would be an undue hardship. 11 U.S.C.A. §§ 523(a)(8), 1328(c). The debtor has the burden of proving that repayment of the student loan would be an undue hardship and thus dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge unless the debtor establishes undue hardship in an adversary proceeding; a chapter 13 plan provision cannot substitute for that proceeding.

In Re Ruehle · filed 2003-07-17(a)(8)

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge absent a showing of hardship. A debtor must bring an adversary proceeding to establish hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) treats a student loan as nondischargeable until a court determines that it is covered by the discharge.

Underwood v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. (In Re Underwood) · filed 2003-09-19(a)(8)

Despite counsels’ current characterization of these issues, there cannot be a discharge violation in connection with a student loan debt until there is a judicial determination that the student loan debt is encompassed by the discharge, rather than an exception to the discharge.

A student loan creditor must receive notice meeting adversary proceeding service standards before a chapter 13 plan can resolve dischargeability under § 523(a)(8).

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Repp (In Re Repp) · filed 2004-03-26(a)(8)

Second, Rule 7001(6)'s requirement of an adversary proceeding creates the reasonable expectation that a § 523(a)(8) dischargeability issue need not be responded to, and will not be addressed by the court, until there has been proper service of a summons and complaint pursuant to Rule 7004.

Section 523(a)(8) prevents a debtor from effectively discharging post-petition student-loan interest by applying Chapter 13 trustee payments to principal absent a showing of undue hardship.

United States Department of Education v. Harris · filed 2006-03-30(a)(8)

Because § 523(a)(8) explicitly precludes discharge of student loan debt in the absence of a showing by the Debtor of undue hardship and because DOE’s application of payments is consistent with the principles set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 682.404(f), the bankruptcy court’s order, to the extent that it directs DOE to first apply the trustee payment to principal thereby effectively discharging post-petition interest, is in error and must be REVERSED.

Under the 1997 version of § 523(a)(8), a covered educational loan remains nondischargeable when the debtor cosigned the loan but was not the student or recipient of the funds.

Corletta v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (In re Pappas) · filed 2014-09-08(a)(8)

Under the statute, the general rule is that educational loans are not dischargea-ble. § 523(a)(8). Two exceptions are provided. One, if the loan first became due more than seven years before the bankruptcy petition was filed; and two, if enforcement would result in undue hardship. That Plaintiff was not the recipient of the funds and was not the student are not stated as exceptions to nondischargeability.

Section 523(a)(8) prevents discharge of student loan debt, including collection costs and default rate interest, without a showing of undue hardship.

In re Jordan · filed 2016-07-01(a)(8)

Because the Special Provision would have the effect of discharging the Debtors’ personal liability for collection costs and default rate interest without their having made the showing of undue hardship required by § 523(a)(8) (and thus § 1328(a)(2)), the Special Provision violates the Bankruptcy Code, and the Court accordingly must deny confirmation of the Plan.

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

Ray v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Ray) · filed 2018-09-20(a)(8)

Section 523(a)(8) excepts from discharge a debt for an educational benefit, unless the obligation imposes an "undue hardship" on the debtor. ... The Note therefore meets the definition of "educational benefit" under section 523(a)(8). ... Plaintiff does not argue the ECMC debt would impose an undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) makes interest on nondischargeable student loans nondischargeable; a Chapter 13 plan cannot effectively discharge that interest without an adversary proceeding and the required undue hardship findings.

Saralyn A. Wright · filed 2019-07-23(a)(8)

The Court cannot confirm a Chapter 13 plan that effectively discharges part of a non-dischargeable debt without an adversary proceeding, and without making the findings and conclusions required by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

A complaint states a claim for student loan dischargeability under § 523(a)(8) when it alleges a prepetition consolidation and does not allege that the loan was disbursed after the petition.

Sheffield v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (P · filed 2019-08-22(a)(8)

Although the Defendants argue that, in fact, the consolidation loan did not disburse until after the Debtor filed his Chapter 7, the Plaintiff’s complaint no longer contains an allegation concerning disbursement. As such, the complaint states a claim for dischargeabilty under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

A debtor claiming that student loans fall outside § 523(a)(8)(B) must plead facts supporting that claim.

Lee v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2019-11-07(a)(8)(B)

Ms. Lee has failed to state a claim upon which I could conclude that these loans are not “qualified” and not protected from discharge under § 523(a)(8)(B).

Section 523(a)(8) makes a student loan nondischargeable when the debtor fails to prove that repayment would impose undue hardship on the debtor and dependents.

Lewis v. MASSACHUSETTS HIGHER ED. ASSIST. CORPORA · filed 2020-01-29(a)(8)

Because Lewis did not prove under § 523(a)(8) that repaying the Loan will impose an undue hardship on herself and her children, the Loan is not dischargeable.

Student loans covered by section 523(a)(8) are presumptively nondischargeable unless the debtor obtains an undue hardship determination.

Bannister v. The National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1 · filed 2021-01-20(a)(8)

Because the Navient Loans are presumptively nondischargeable under section 523(a)(8), the Court’s May 24, 2010 order of discharge did not relieve the Debtor of her obligation to pay the Navient Debts.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts interest on a nondischargeable student loan from discharge along with the principal.

Zeno v. Department of Education · filed 2024-03-28(a)(8)

As such, the Bankruptcy Court did not err in finding that Zeno’s student loan (principal and interest) was not dischargeable.

Under § 523(a)(8), a debtor’s good-faith payments and available repayment plans can affect whether a student loan is dischargeable.

Duncanson v. Bank of North Dakota · filed 2025-01-06(a)(8)

Had the Court not considered the SAVE Plan, it would have reached the same conclusion based on Debtor’s lack of good-faith payments towards the DOE loan.

Section 523(a)(5) treats a debt payable to a third party as a domestic support obligation when it is structured to support a former spouse or their children.

Ventrone v. Hundt · filed 2023-01-31(a)(5)

Obligations payable to entities other than a debtor’s spouse are nonetheless considered ‘owed’ to a former spouse for the purposes of Section 523(a)(5) where the obligation is structured and designed in the nature of that spouse’s and/or their children’s support for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(5) treats attorney fees awarded in child custody proceedings as presumptively in the nature of support and excepts them from discharge.

Summer D Baxter · filed 2023-01-06(a)(5)

As a matter of law, the award of attorney fees which Father incurred in the custody proceedings is presumptively being regarded as being in the nature of “support” non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts from discharge court-awarded attorney fees incurred in child custody proceedings when they are in the nature of support.

Baxter v. Baxter · filed 2023-01-26(a)(5)

As a matter of law, the award of attorney fees which Father incurred in the custody proceedings is presumptively regarded as being in the nature of “support” non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) makes a divorce obligation nondischargeable to the extent the divorce court intended it as support.

Cummings v. Cummings · filed 2008-05-15(a)(5)

Accordingly, the bankruptcy court properly found that the first two lump sum payments were not dischargeable under § 523(a)(5) based on the divorce court’s clarification order.

Under the version applicable before the 2005 amendments, § 523(a)(5) can except repayment of overpaid spousal support from discharge when the repayment obligation is intended to provide and actually provides support to a former spouse.

Norbut v. Norbut (In Re Norbut) · filed 2008-04-16(a)(5)

The court finds that, under the particular circumstances of this adversary proceeding, the judgment rendered by the Ohio state courts liquidating the Debtor’s obligation to the Plaintiff for the overpayment of spousal support is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5)(B) makes a debt nondischargeable when the parties intended the payment to be spousal support.

Zamos v. Zamos · filed 2008-02-12(a)(5)(B)

Because, as the bankruptcy court found, the Zamos’s marital settlement agreement in 1982 clearly intended that Jerome was to pay spousal support to Patricia, this debt is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) makes an obligation in the nature of spousal support nondischargeable even when it is based on relative incomes rather than the recipient’s actual current need.

MacGibbon v. MacGibbon (In Re MacGibbon) · filed 2008-02-29(a)(5)

I conclude that there is no requirement of actual current need, and considering, first and foremost, the dissolution court’s intent, as well as the other customary factors, find the provision is in the nature of alimony, maintenance and support and thus nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) makes a divorce property award nondischargeable to the extent it was intended to function as support.

Cummings v. Cummings · filed 2001-03-20(a)(5)

To the extent the court intended a portion of the obligation to function as support, that debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) makes attorney fees awarded in a custody proceeding nondischargeable when they are in the nature of child support.

Falk & Siemer, LLP v. Maddigan (In Re Maddigan) · filed 2001-03-14(a)(5)

Here, the determination of custody constitutes such “other order”. ... Rather, the issue is whether the award of counsel fees is truly in the nature of support. ... Accordingly, judgment shall be entered declaring that this claim is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts obligations intended to provide maintenance or support to a former spouse or children from discharge, including payments for their shelter and transportation.

Stahl v. Stahl (In Re Stahl) · filed 2001-03-05(a)(5)

We conclude from the foregoing that debtor’s obligations to pay the mortgage against the marital residence and to pay the loan for plaintiffs Jeep Cherokee are excepted from discharge by § 523(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts from discharge a debtor’s obligation to pay legal fees a former spouse incurred litigating support.

Gunther v. Glabb (In Re Glabb) · filed 2001-03-05(a)(5)

Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the obligation debtor voluntarily incurred when he agreed in the above consent order to pay the sum of $2,500.00 to Gunther’s attorney was specifically for legal services the attorney provided in connection with Gunther’s various requests for support for herself and their children. As such, this obligation also is excepted from discharge. A debtor’s obligation to pay legal fees incurred by a former spouse in litigating a debtor’s support obligation is also excepted from discharge by § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) treats fees and costs from a visitation contempt proceeding as nondischargeable support.

Burrell v. Lewis · filed 2001-02-28(a)(5)

We find the reasoning in this line of bankruptcy cases to be persuasive; thus, we disagree with Father's argument that contempt judgments based upon a visitation dispute would be dischargeable in bankruptey, thus making the trial court's judgment void.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) requires a divorce-related debt to be actually in the nature of support to be excepted from discharge, regardless of its label.

Jones v. Jones (In Re Jones) · filed 2001-01-08(a)(5)(B)

Although the Parties’s Separation Agreement attempts to label the Defendant’s payment obligation on the marital residence as support, since most of the normal indicia that are associated with a support obligation are not present in this case, the Court cannot find that it was the Parties’ mutual intent to create, for purposes of § 523(a)(5), a support obligation.

Section 523(a)(5) can make a support debt nondischargeable even when the payee is not the debtor’s spouse, former spouse, or child.

Williams v. Kemp Jr · filed 2000-11-22(a)(5)

Section 523(a)(5) may apply even if the payee is not a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor, however.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce-related maintenance and support debts from discharge; a payment that equalizes marital property does not qualify merely because the spouses have unequal earnings.

Frazier v. Frazier · filed 2000-11-15(a)(5)

However, the Bankruptcy Code explicitly excepts obligations for any debt “to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor, for alimony to, maintenance for, or support of such spouse or child in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record.” ... Finally, the order clearly contemplates an equalization of the marital property division, payable in a lump sum payment within 180 days or alternatively, in short-term installment payments. We therefore reverse the portion of the trial court’s order characterizing the $394,018.00 judgment as non-dischargeable maintenance or support.

Section 523(a)(18) excepts from discharge a support debt owed to a state under state law and enforceable under the Social Security Act, including AFDC reimbursement incurred before a support order.

Perry v. Division of Child Support Enforcement Department of Social Services of Virginia (In Re Perry) · filed 2000-09-19(a)(18)

The reimbursement debt by its very purpose is “in the nature of support” and enforceable under the Social Security Act. Therefore, the AFDC payments between 1988 and 1990 created a debt that is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(18) and 42 U.S.C. § 656(b).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a child support debt from discharge only if the support is for a child of the debtor.

White v. Ouachita County Office of Child Support Enforcement Unit (In Re White) · filed 2000-09-13(a)(5)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, the debt is nondis-chargeable only if it is for support of “a child of the debtor....” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) (1994). Therefore, the debt is dischargeable because, even though it is an obligation in the nature of support, it is not for the Debtor’s children.

Section 523(a)(5) does not permit a debtor to retain pension benefits already awarded to a former spouse as property in a divorce decree.

McGraw v. McGraw (In Re McGraw) · filed 1994-12-23(a)(5)

While we recognize that certain marital debts and obligations are and should be dischargeable, we do not believe that § 523(a)(5) gives one spouse carte blanche to retain marital property at the other spouse’s expense.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a marital property award from discharge when the award is intended to provide support.

Rosenblatt v. Wittlin (In Re Rosenblatt) · filed 1994-12-20(a)(5)

In light of the foregoing, the distributive award of marital assets in the amount of $533,000.00, which was designed to generate an annual income for BELINDA, was in the nature of support and therefore, is a non-dischargeable debt under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a lump sum divorce obligation from discharge when its function is to provide alimony, maintenance, or support.

Ackley v. Ackley (In Re Ackley) · filed 1994-12-19(a)(5)

Based on a review of the substance of the lump sum award in issue in terms of the totality of the various factors as recognized for analyzing obligations under Section 523(a)(5), as well as the overall arrangement of the jury’s verdict, the Court concludes that the award’s function was to provide for Defendant’s daily needs while assisting in her rehabilitation for a limited period of time after the divorce. Thus, the lump sum obligation created incident to the parties’ divorce is in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support, and it is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a debt to a former spouse from discharge only when the debt is actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support.

In Re: Curtis R. Catron, Debtor. v. Curtis R. Catron, Nancy L. Catron · filed 1994-12-21(a)(5)

This section is written in a roundabout way, but the bottom line is simple: a debt is not dischargeable merely because it is "designated" as alimony, maintenance, or support; it must "actually" be "in the nature" of one of them.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts spousal maintenance from discharge; whether a domestic obligation is maintenance depends on its substance and the parties’ intent at dissolution.

In re the Marriage of Wilson · filed 1994-12-15(a)(5)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) (1988), awards of maintenance for a spouse are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The question whether a domestic obligation is in the nature of maintenance must be determined based on federal bankruptcy standards, taking into account the substance of the obligation and the intent of the parties at the time of dissolution.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts obligations for alimony, maintenance, or support from discharge, while property settlements are dischargeable.

Janowski v. Janowski (In Re Janowski) · filed 1994-12-15(a)(5)

Having considered the unique facts of the present case, this Court finds that the tax contributions at issue are in the nature of a property settlement, and are therefore dis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) permits a bankruptcy court to consider the parties’ relative financial positions and the award’s function when deciding whether divorce-related fees were intended as support.

Foiles v. Taylor · filed 1994-11-02(a)(5)(B)

Therefore, in attempting to divine the intent of the Divorce Court, we find that Judge Tice was authorized as a matter of law to inquire into the relative financial position of the parties and the function served by the award. ... Accordingly, we AFFIRM the findings of the Bankruptcy Court that the debts owed Taylor and Beck are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5)(B) excepts divorce-related attorney’s fees, commissioner’s fees, and court costs from discharge when the awards are in the nature of support.

Ewing v. Ewing (In Re Ewing) · filed 1994-11-28(a)(5)(B)

For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, the commissioner’s fees and court costs in the amount of $3,561.00 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,000.00 awarded to Patricia Ewing pursuant to the Final Decree of Divorce by the circuit court are not dischargea-ble under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(B) as such obligations are in the nature of support.

Federal law determines whether an award is in the nature of alimony or support for purposes of dischargeability under § 523(a)(5).

In Re Neal · filed 1994-11-02(a)(5)

Whether an award is in the nature of support for purposes of discharge-ability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) of alimony or support is a question of federal law.

Section 523(a)(5) makes a lump sum divorce award nondischargeable when its substance and purpose are to provide support.

Nix v. Nix (In Re Nix) · filed 1994-10-18(a)(5)

Based on a review of the award in terms of the totality of the various factors as recognized in analyzing obligations under Section 523(a)(5), the Court concludes that the substance of the lump sum cash award, and purpose and intent as evidenced by the verdict, establishes that said award was designed to provide for Defendant’s daily needs while assisting in her rehabilitation for a limited period of time after the divorce. Thus, the lump sum award at issue is in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support and is, therefore, nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce obligations from discharge when they function as alimony or support, including property awards, hold harmless obligations, life insurance obligations, and attorney fees.

Sweck v. Sweck (In Re Sweck) · filed 1994-10-19(a)(5)

After consideration of the Family Court order in its entirety, together with the factors discussed above, the memoranda of the parties, and the applicable law, we find that the Debtor’s obligation to pay the Plaintiff eighty percent of the marital assets, to hold her harmless on the debt encumbering the yacht, to retain his former wife as an irrevocable beneficiary on the life insurance policy provided by his employer, and to pay her legal expenses in the amount of $18,972, are all in the nature of alimony or support, and are therefore nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) does not except a divorce obligation from discharge when the obligation was intended to divide marital property rather than provide support.

Ford v. Buckallew (In re Buckallew) · filed 1994-10-03(a)(5)(B)

The Order for Modification of Decree of Divorce is, thus, very clear that this obligation was intended by the parties to be a division of property. As such, I find that debtor’s obligation to pay plaintiff $13,000.00 is a dis-chargeable debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(B), and I find in favor of debtor as to Count I of the Complaint.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) requires courts to look beyond the parties’ labels and determine whether a divorce-related debt is actually support.

Huey v. Huey · filed 1994-09-28(a)(5)(B)

The court is not bound by the label the parties placed on the obligation, but rather the court must look to the substance of the agreement dissolving the marriage and determine the nature of the obligation as a matter of fact.

Section 523(a)(5) can make a divorce-related attorney fee award nondischargeable as support even when the state court denied spousal support.

Gionis v. Wayne (In Re Gionis) · filed 1994-09-09(a)(5)

The major flaw in Gionis’ argument is that, as noted above, the state court’s labels do not control the federal question. Rather, the state court’s statement is mere evidence to be received with all the other evidence in the ease. Moreover, the denial of spousal support would not preclude the possibility that the fee award was some other form of support.

Section 523(a)(5) requires courts to examine the intent behind divorce decree payments and whether the evidence supports treating them as alimony or support.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,067 in Re Jack W. Young, Debtor, Jack W. Young v. Young · filed 1994-08-30(a)(5)

Although we are here dealing with the meaning of a decree entered after a contested hearing, the basic inquiry is the same — what was intended by the court in entering the decree and whether the evidence adduced in support of the decree justifies that court’s characterization of the payments as alimony.

Section 523(a)(5) makes debts to a former spouse for alimony, maintenance, or support nondischargeable; property settlements are dischargeable.

Lewis v. Lewis · filed 1994-08-23(a)(5)

Section 523 (a) (5) of the Bankruptcy Code denies debtors discharges from debts owed to former spouses for alimony, maintenance or support. ... In contrast, property settlements to former spouses are dischargeable. ... Therefore, the trial court’s conclusion that the debt is nondischargeable is not clearly erroneous.

Section 523(a)(5) requires courts deciding whether a divorce debt is support to consider the parties’ intent when the obligation was created, including relevant circumstances beyond the agreement’s text.

Steiner v. Steiner · filed 1994-08-25(a)(5)

Here, the trial court based its decision on the terms of the parties’ separation agreement alone and failed to consider the existence of extrinsic factors that would also necessarily bear on the question of the intended character of the husband’s mortgage obligation.

Section 523(a)(5) does not except a property settlement debt from discharge when the debt is not actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support.

Carter v. Carter · filed 1994-08-16(a)(5)(B)

Timothy's obligation to Theresa under the property settlement agreement was a debt arising out of the resolution of property rights and obligations. It was not in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support. Therefore, it was a debt dischargeable in bankruptcy and was discharged by the October 16, 1992 bankruptcy order.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) excepts a state reimbursement judgment for child support from discharge when the parent owed a support duty under state law, even without a prior support order.

State, Department of Human Services v. Poggenpohl · filed 1994-08-04(a)(5)(A)

The reimbursement order was for support of John’s child that has been paid by another. The trial court correctly found it not dis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) does not except from discharge attorney fees incurred solely in litigation over visitation rights and related discovery disputes.

Aughenbaugh v. Aughenbaugh (In Re Aughenbaugh) · filed 1990-09-27(a)(5)

In this present instance, this Court is satisfied that the award to counsel was solely related to litigation involving visitation rights and discovery disputes in connection with the same. There is hardly any doubt that the obligation imposed on a spouse to pay attorney fees for services rendered in connection with litigation involving these issues should not come, and is not within, the exceptive provisions of the general bankruptcy discharge provided by § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) does not except a debtor’s own attorney fees for seeking child support from discharge when the debtor had no legal obligation to hire counsel for the child.

In the Matter of Linda M. Rios, Debtor. Appeal of Diana D. Dubroff · filed 1990-04-23(a)(5)

That theory cannot stretch to cover fees for an attorney hired by the debtor, unless there is some legal obligation to hire an attorney on behalf of the spouse or child.

Section 523(a)(5) does not except a debt owed to a neutral divorce arbitrator from discharge because it is not owed to the spouse or former spouse.

Hutchins v. Hutchins (In Re Hutchins) · filed 1990-04-10(a)(5)

Still, the logic of treating Judge pro tem. Salter’s bill in the same fashion must yield to the language of the statute (11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(5)) requiring that the debt must be owed to the spouse or former spouse, interpreted in the Spong decision, supra, as including the spouse’s attorney. Judge Salter acted as a neutral arbitrator, not as attorney for Donna Hutchins, to whom the support debt is owed.

Section 523(a)(5) makes obligations to pay a second mortgage and divorce counsel fees nondischargeable when they are, in substance, support and maintenance for a former spouse and children.

Soroka v. Kornguth (In Re Kornguth) · filed 1990-03-20(a)(5)

The Court finds, for reasons set forth below, that both of these obligations are in the nature of support and maintenance and, accordingly, are nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a child-support debt from discharge when a divorce decree requires the debtor to pay the child’s medical expenses and the former spouse is directly liable for them.

Sherrin v. Bakken (In Re Bakken) · filed 1990-03-13(a)(5)

Since the debt is to a former spouse within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) and it is admitted that the Debtor’s obligation to pay the debt is in the nature of maintenance or support under that section, the debt is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(5) makes obligations that are actually in the nature of alimony or support nondischargeable without reassessing their reasonableness based on current circumstances.

Smith v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 1990-03-13(a)(5)

This Court declines to review the “reasonableness” of alimony and support obligations of the debtor and adopts the majority view, as stated above, that a federal bankruptcy court is not the proper forum in which to re-examine the parties’ divorce arrangements. Accordingly, the debtor’s request for modification of certain obligations under the Final Judgment of Divorce and Separation Agreement is denied, and all of the obligations therein are determined by this Court to be nondischargeable under section 523(a)(5) as obligations in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) does not treat an attorney fee award payable to a former spouse’s lawyer as an assigned debt when the award was intended to support the former spouse.

Senkel v. Fahland (In Re Fahland) · filed 1990-02-08(a)(5)(A)

Therefore, the Court finds and concludes that the dissolution decree award to this Plaintiff was not a debt which was assigned to another entity, and is not an exception to the exception to discharge as set out at Section 523(a)(5)(A). The Court further finds and concludes that the award was intended to be an award of support to the Debtor’s nondebtor former spouse. By separate order, judgement is entered in favor of the Plaintiff, and the debt is determined to be not dischargeable in this case.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) permits discharge of a divorce-related hold-harmless debt when it is a property settlement rather than alimony, maintenance, or support.

Fitzsimmons v. Fitzsimmons (In Re Fitzsimmons) · filed 1990-02-06(a)(5)(B)

Therefore, this Court finds that the assumption of debts by the Debtor and his pledge to hold Plaintiff harmless thereon were in the nature of a property settlement and are dischargeable in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(B).

Section 523(a)(5) permits discharge of divorce obligations that are property settlements rather than support, but excepts attorney’s fees incurred to enforce support obligations.

Carbia v. Clark (In Re Carbia) · filed 1990-01-31(a)(5)(B)

That the obligations owed by the Plaintiff/debtor to the Defendant/creditor pursuant to the Marital Settlement Agreement, and titled “Marital Debts” and “Lump Sum Alimony”, are dischargeable under Section 523(a)(5)(B), of the Bankruptcy Code, because these obligations were not for the support and maintenance of the Defendant/creditor, but rather meant as a distribution of property between the parties. Further, that the attorney’s fees awarded to Luis A. Fors, Esq., by the State Court are nondischargeable, because the fees were incurred in connection with the enforcement of the support obligations of the Plaintiff/Debtor.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a former spouse’s attorney fees from discharge when the obligation functions as support and reflects need, a duty to support, and ability to pay.

Russo v. Wisniewski (In Re Wisniewski) · filed 1990-01-12(a)(5)

This court is satisfied that the requisite need, duty to support and ability to pay nevertheless existed both in fact and within the understanding of the parties. Consequently, the debtor’s obligation to his former wife’s attorney is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts alimony, maintenance, and support debts from discharge, but does not except a property settlement obligation.

Cleda D. Bush v. Alvin G. Taylor and Barbara F. Taylor · filed 1990-01-11(a)(5)

Although a debt for alimony, maintenance, or support is not subject to discharge, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(5), Bush stipulated below that the obligation was for a property settlement. The debt is therefore dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) makes a marital debt nondischargeable when its assumption was intended to provide maintenance or support.

Streich v. Osterberg (In Re Osterberg) · filed 1990-01-19(a)(5)

The court concludes from the facts and circumstances that Scott’s assumption of the marital debts was essential to Julie’s economic security and thus were in the nature of maintenance and support. Accordingly, the State Court Judgment in the sum of $3,727.42 and the $.8,985.10 balance due in consequence of the deficiency on the mobile home loan are nondischargeable support obligations under section 523(a)(5) of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts an assumed divorce debt from discharge when the parties intended it as support and it had the effect of providing necessary support.

Larson v. Boroff · filed 1990-01-05(a)(5)

The issue of the dischargeability of the assumption of debt turns on whether Boroff's agreement to hold Larson harmless on the debt was "in the nature of alimony" or in the nature of a property settlement. If the former, then it is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. If the latter, then it is dischargeable. ... First, the court is to determine whether it was the intent of the parties that the assumption of debt would be in the nature of alimony. Second, if it is determined that the parties intended the assumption to be in the nature of alimony, Calhoun requires that the court determine whether the assumption actually had the effect of providing necessary support. ... We hold that the ruling of the bankruptcy court was not clearly erroneous on the effect of the debt assumption. When considered over the course of time between the divorce in 1979 and Boroff's filing of bankruptcy in 1984, Boroff's assumption of debt did have the effect of providing necessary support to Larson.

Section 523(a)(5) makes unpaid child support nondischargeable even after the children reach adulthood when the payments would have provided necessary support when due.

Ridgway v. McKeever (In Re Ridgway) · filed 1989-11-07(a)(5)

Under this provision, obligations which are imposed by a divorce decree, and which are in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support, are not dischargeable in a proceeding under Chapter 7. ... It is FURTHER ORDERED that the child support arrearage owed by the Plaintiff to M. Susan McKeever be, and is hereby, Nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts an obligation to pay joint debts from discharge when those payments provide support for a former spouse, even if they are paid to creditors rather than directly to the spouse.

Brand v. Brand (In Re Brand) · filed 1989-10-27(a)(5)

If the obligation exists, there is no sound reason for any distinction to be made between whether the alimony or support was to be paid “for” or whether it was to be paid “to” the plaintiff, in the context of the exception to discharge set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). ... Taking the separation agreement in the light of evidence, the Court concludes that the debtor’s obligation to make the payments upon the four credit accounts for which the plaintiff was jointly liable amounted to an agreement to pay alimony or support for her benefit. ... Consequently, a judgment for the plaintiff will be be entered which adjudges the obligation of the debtor to the plaintiff to pay these four accounts to be nondischargeable in this bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce obligations from discharge when they are actually alimony, maintenance, or support, regardless of how they are labeled.

Terrell v. Terrell (In Re Terrell) · filed 1989-10-26(a)(5)

In determining the dischargeability issue, the Bankruptcy Court is charged with the duty to determine the true nature and substance of an obligation within the context of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) regardless of the characterization placed on it by the parties’ agreement or the state court proceeding.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts from discharge divorce obligations that provide support, even when they are structured as a property settlement.

Cacolici v. Transohio Savings (In Re Cacolici) · filed 1989-10-13(a)(5)

Applying the standards of Calhoun and Singer, I conclude that Mrs. Cacolici has borne her burden of proving that the Debtor’s obligations to her in respect of both the Firebird and the Home were intended for Mrs. Cacolici’s support, were necessary for her support and would, if made, have had the effect of providing support. These obligations constitute a property settlement in the nature of maintenance and support and are non-discharge-able under section 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce-related mortgage obligation from discharge when it is in the nature of necessary support.

Leupp v. Leupp (In Re Leupp) · filed 1987-03-18(a)(5)

Defendant’s agreement to pay and hold plaintiff harmless on the second mortgage has, then, the effect of providing support as it allows plaintiff to use her money for support of herself and the minor children of the parties. Defendant’s obligation to pay the second mortgage is a payment necessary for his former wife’s security and support and is, then, in the nature of maintenance and support and is not dischargeable.