A Texas bankruptcy court slaps ECMC with punitive damages for repeatedly garnishing a Starbucks employee's paychecks in violation of the automatic stay provision: "The Ragged Edge"

Anyone who has dealt with Educational Credit Management Corporation as a debtor knows that it is a ruthless and heartless organization. As one of the federal government's student-loan debt collectors, it has harassed hapless creditors thousands of time. It was ECMC that opposed bankruptcy relief for Janet Roth, an elderly woman with chronic health problems who was living on less than $800 a month.

But the Roth case does not fully display ECMC's callousness.  A better illustration of its merciless behavior is found in Bruner-Halteman v. ECMC, decided by a Texas bankruptcy court last April.

Bruner-Halteman was a single mother who worked at Starbucks, living, as the bankruptcy court observed, "on the ragged edge where any adversity can be catastrophic." She owed about $5,000 on a student loan issued by Sallie Mae, and she was in default.

In 2012, ECMC garnished Bruner-Halteman's  Starbucks wages, and she filed for bankruptcy, which, under federal law, triggers an automatic stay of all garnishment activities. ECMC received notice of the bankruptcy filing, and even participated as a creditor in Bruner-Halteman's bankruptcy proceedings. But it continued to garnish Bruner-Halteman's wages for almost two years.

In fact, ECMC garnished Bruner-Halteman's wages 37 times AFTER she filed for bankruptcy--a clear violation of the law. Moreover, ECMC had no reasonable excuse for its misbehavior. In fact, ECMC refunded the wages it garnished on 17 occasions but kept on garnishing this poor woman's wages. Indeed, the garnishments did not stop until Bruner-Halteman  filed a lawsuit for damages in the bankruptcy court.

The bankruptcy court held a three-day trial on Bruner-Haltman's claims and heard plenty of evidence about the stress Bruner-Halteman experienced due to ECMC's illegal garnishments.  On April 8, 2016, the court awarded her actual damages of  about $8,000, attorney fees, and $74,000 in punitive damages.

Here is how the bankruptcy judge summarized ECMC's conduct:

ECMC's systematic, knowing, and willful disregard of the automatic stay and the protections afforded a debtor by the bankruptcy system was particularly egregious and offends the integrity of the the bankruptcy process. . . The indifference shown by ECMC to the Plaintiff and the bankruptcy process is gravely disturbing.

The court was particularly offended by the fact that ECMC repeatedly refunded the amounts it garnished but did not stop the garnishment process. "The callousness of the refund process is particularly rattling," the court wrote.

"In order to process a refund," the court noted, "an ECMC employee had to make the determination that the debtor had an active bankruptcy case, but that did nothing to convince ECMC that it should be cancelling the wage garnishments . . ." Instead, ECMC processed the refunds "at whatever pace it chose" while Bruner-Halteman "was doing everything she could to make ends meet."

At the conclusion of its opinion, the court summarized ECMC's behavior as follows:

A sophisticated creditor, ECMC, active in many cases in this district and across the country, decided that it could continue to garnish a debtor's wages with full knowledge that she was in a pending bankruptcy case. The Plaintiff, a woman who suffers from a severe medical condition, was hurt in the process. She was deprived of the full use of her paycheck. She incurred significant attorneys' fees in trying to fix the situation. A garnishment of a few hundred dollars may not be much to everyone, but to Kristin Bruner-Halteman, it meant a lot.

I will make just two comments about ECMC's merciless and cruel behavior in the Bruner-Halteman case. First, $74,000 might be a significant punitive-damages award for some organizations, but 74 grand is peanuts to ECMC.  After all, the Century Foundation reported recently that ECMC, a nonprofit organization, has $1 billion in cash and unrestricted assets. A punitive damages award of a million dollars would have been more appropriate.

Second, Ms. Bruner-Halteman was not awarded damages for ECMC's outlaw conduct until April 8, 2016, almost exactly four years after ECMC's first  wrongful garnishment.  Obviously, ECMC knows how to stretch out the litigatin process  to wear down its adversaries.

ECMC's name has appeared as a named party in more than 500 court decisions. A little dust-up like the one it had with Bruner-Haltemann is simply the price of doing business in the dirty commerce of harassing student-loan defaulters. And you can bet no one at ECMC missed a meal or lost any sleep because of the Bruner-Halteman case.

Perhaps Senator Elizabeth Warren, who publicly bemoans the excesses of the student loan industry, should hold Senate hearings and ask ECMC's CEO a few questions. Questions like: How much do ECMC executives pay themselves? How did ECMC accumulate $1 billion in unrestricted assets? And who is paying ECMC's attorney fees for hounding all those American student-loan borrowers--millions of whom, like Bruner-Halteman, are living "on the ragged edge"?

References

Bruner-Halteman v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, Case No. 12-324-HDH-13, ADV. No. 14-03041 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2016).

Robert Shireman and Tariq Habash. Have Student Loan Guaranty Agencies Lost Their Way? The Century Foundation, September 29, 2016. Accessible at https://tcf.org/content/report/student-loan-guaranty-agencies-lost-way/

A Kansas bankruptcy court discharged all the accrued interest on a married couple's student loans: Murray v. ECMC

Do you remember political consultant James Carville's famous line during the 1992 presidential campaign? "It's the economy, stupid," Carville supposedly observed. That eloquently simple remark became Bill Clinton's distilled campaign message and helped propel him into the presidency.

Something similar might be said about the student-loan crisis: "It's the interest, stupid." In fact, for many Americans, it is the interest and penalties on their student loans--not the amount they borrowed--which is causing them so much financial distress.

The Remarkable case of Murray v. Educational Credit Management Corporation

This truth is starkly illustrated in the case of Murray v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, which was decided last December by a Kansas bankruptcy judge.  At the time they filed for bankruptcy, Alan and Catherine Murray owed $311,000 in student-loan debt, even though they had only borrowed about $77,000. Thus 75 percent of their total debt represented interest on their loans, which had accrued over almost 20 years at an annual rate of 9 percent.

As Judge Dale Somers explained in his ruling on the case, the Murrays had taken out 31 student loans back in the 1990s to obtain bachelor's degrees and master's degrees. In 1996, when they consolidated their loans, they only owed a total of $77,524.

Over the years, the Murrays made loan payments when they could, which totaled $54,000--more than half the amount they borrowed. Nevertheless, they entered into several forbearance agreements that allowed them to skip payments; and they also signed up for income-driven repayment plans that reduced the amount of their monthly payments. Meanwhile, interest on their debt continued to accrue. By the the time the Murrays filed for bankruptcy in 2014, their $77,000 debt had grown to almost a third of a million dollars.

The Murrays' combined income was substantial--about $95,000. Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC), the creditor in the case, argued that the Murrays had enough discretionary income to make significant loan payments in an income-driven repayment plan.  In fact, under such a plan, their monthly loan payments would be less than $1,000 a month,

But Judge Somers disagreed. Interest on the Murrays' debt was accruing at the rate of $65 a day, Judge Somers pointed out--about $2,000 a month. Clearly, the couple would never pay off their loan under ECMC's proposed repayment plan. Instead,  their debt would grow larger with each passing month.

On the other hand, in Judge Somers' view, the Murrays had sufficient income to pay off the principle of their loan and still maintain a minimal standard of living. Thus, he crafted a remarkably sensible ruling whereby the interest on the Murrays' debt was discharged but not the principle. The Murrays are still obligated to pay the $77,000 they borrowed back in the 1990s plus future interest on this amount, which would begin accruing at the rate of 9 percent commencing on the date of the court's judgment.

Judge Somers Points the Way to Sensible Student-Debt Relief

In my view, Judge Somers' decision in the Murray case is a sensible way to address the student debt crisis.  Eight million people have defaulted on their loans, and 5.6 million more are making token payments under income-driven repayment plans that are often not large enough to cover accruing interest. Millions of Americans have obtained loan deferments that allow them to skip their loan payments; but these people--like the Murrays--are seeing their loan balances grow each month as interest accrues.

Judge Somers' decision doesn't solve the student-loan crisis in its entirety, but it is a good solution for millions of people whose loan balances have doubled, tripled and even quadrupled due to accrued interest, penalties, and fees.

Obviously, Judge Somers' solution should only be offered to people who dealt with their loans in good faith.  Judge Somers specifically ruled that the Murrays  had acted in good faith regarding their loans. In fact, they paid back about 70 percent of the amount they borrowed.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, ECMC appealed the Murray decision, hoping to overturn it. Nevertheless, let us take heart from the fact that a Kansas bankruptcy judge reviewed a married couple's financial disaster and crafted a fair and humane solution.


References

Murray v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, Case No. 14-22253, ADV. No. 15-6099, 2016 Banrk. LEXIS 4229 (Bankr. D. Kansas, December 8, 2016).

Department of Education inflated student-loan repayment rates for nearly every school and college in the United States! Playing for Time

The Wall Street Journal published a story a few days ago that is truly shocking.  Based on WSJ's analysis, the Department of Education has inflated student-loan repayment rates for 99.8% of all colleges, universities, and trade schools in the United States.

Earlier this month, DOE acknowledged that a "coding error" had caused the Department to mistakenly under report the student-loan default rates at many schools and colleges. But the magnitude of the error wasn't generally known until the Journal published its own analysis.

According to WSJ, at least half the students who attended more than a thousand colleges and trade schools had either defaulted on their student loans within 7 years of beginning repayment or failed to pay down even one dollar of their student loan debt.

This news is shocking, but not surprising. DOE has been misleading the public for years about  student-loan default rates.  Last autumn, for example, DOE reported a 3-year default rate of about 10 percent, a slight decrease from the previous year. But that figure did not take into account the people who had obtained forbearances or deferments and weren't making payments.  The five-year default rate for a  recent cohort of  student debtors is more than double DOE's three-year rate: 28 percent.


And last September, DOE mislead the public again. The Department  identified 477 schools where more than half the students had defaulted or failed to pay down their loan balances 7 years into repayment. But we now know the figure is more than double that number: 1029.

The implications of this new data are staggering. Obviously, the federal student-loan program is a train wreck. Millions of people have student loans they will never pay back. Eight million have defaulted and millions more are making payments so low that their loan balances are growing due to accruing interest.

Several large for-profit colleges have closed under allegations of fraud.  Corinthian Colleges and ITT together have a half million former students. DeVry, which just reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, has a total of more than a quarter of a million students who took out federal loans to finance their studies. Accumulated debt for DeVry students alone is more than $8 billion.

Like the inmate musicians of Auschwitz, DOE's response to this calamity has been to play for time. It has encouraged millions of people to sign up for income-drive repayment plans (IDRs) under terms such that IDR participants will never pay off their loans.  And DOE has set up a cumbersome procedure whereby students who believe they were defrauded by a college can apply to have their student loans forgiven.

But there is only one way out of this nightmare: bankruptcy relief. Ultimately Congress will have to repeal the "undue hardship" provision in the Bankruptcy Code, which has made it virtually impossible for overburdened student debtors to discharge their loans in bankruptcy.

Until that happens, President Trump's Department of Education should modify its harsh stance toward bankrupt student loan debtors. DOE must stop insisting that every bankrupt student borrower should be pushed into an IDR that stretches loan payment periods out for 20 or 25 years.

Student loan debtors who are honest and broke should be able to discharge their student loans in the bankruptcy courts. Within a couple of years that simple truth will be apparent to everyone. Why not start now to relieve the suffering of millions of Americans who got in over their heads with student loans and can't pay them back?

And let's not sell the Trump administration short. Liberals have assumed that Donald Trump will protect the for-profit colleges because of his history with Trump University. But I am not so sure. President Trump knows how to read a financial statement and he understands the value of bankruptcy. He might just do the right thing and turn this calamity over to the federal bankruptcy courts. 

Playing for Time

References

Andrea Fuller. Student Debt Payback Far Worse Than Believed. Wall Street Journal, January 18, 2017.

Amazon partners with Wells Fargo to peddle private student loans: Say it ain't so, Jeff Bezos

Amazon announced recently that it is partnering with Wells Fargo in the private student-loan business. The plan is for Wells Fargo to offer a slightly discounted interest rate to Amazon Prime Student members on Wells Fargo's private student loans.

 I was sorry to get this news. More than 50 years ago, American businesses discovered that they could rake in more cash from loaning money to their customers than from selling products. Prior to filing bankruptcy, for example, General Motors generated more profits from GMAC, its lending arm, than it did from selling cars.

In fact, the common joke at the time was that GM was not a car manufacturing company; it was a bank that happened to sell cars. And of course that slight change in focus from building quality automobiles to lending money at interest partly explains why GM went bankrupt.

Amazon already sells just about everything in the world. I recently purchased a couple of bags of wood chips for my electric smoker from Amazon; and I bought them cheaper than I could have gotten them at my local grocery store. Amazon's success has made Jeff Bezos, its founder, the third richest man in the world. He's worth about $65 billion.

Do Jeff and Amazon really need to get into the student loan business? Doesn't Jeff have enough money already?

But what is wrong with Amazon getting into the private student loan business, you might ask? What makes peddling student loans different from selling books, CDs, and appliances?

At least three things. First, most banks and lenders require student-loan borrowers to obtain a co-signer who will guarantee repayment of the loan. Thus, when Johnny and Sallie take out private student loans, Mom and Pop are also on the hook. In my opinion, it is reprehensible for banks to force students to get parents or relatives to cosign student loans.

Second, private loans generally carry higher interest rates than federal student loans, and they don't provide alternative payment options if a borrower runs into financial trouble and can't make monthly loan payments.  Without exception, people would be better off borrowing in the federal program than the private program.

Private lenders argue that they provide loans to people who need more money than they can borrow through the federal program.  But in my view, people who can't finance their educational program solely through federal loans are in the wrong program.

Finally, the banks managed to get Congress to revise the Bankruptcy Code in 2005 to make private loans as difficult to discharge in bankruptcy as federal loans. Senator Joe Biden was the chief architect of that sweetheart deal for the banks.

So if you take out a student loan from Wells Fargo and suffer a financial catastrophe, you will find it virtually impossible to discharge your Wells Fargo loan in bankruptcy. This is another good reason not to take out a private student loan.

In sum, the private student loan business is a sleazy industry. And so I ask again: Jeff Bezos, don't you have enough money already? Does Amazon really need to associate itself with the unsavory commerce in private student loans?

Jeff Bezos: Say it ain't so, Jeff

References

Ann Carne. Student Loan Co-Signers Face Tangled Path to a Release. New York Times, July 10, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/your-money/student-loan-co-signers-face-a-tangled-path-to-a-release.html

Karen Silke Carty. 7 Reasons GM is Headed to Bankruptcy. ABC News. Accessible at http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7721675&page=1

Annamaria Andriotis. Amazon tiptoes into the banking business through student loans. Wall Street Journal, July 21, 2016. Accessible at http://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-tip-toes-into-banking-business-1469093403

Sirota, David. Joe Biden Backed Bills to Make It Harder For Americans To Reduce Their Student Debt. International Business Times, September 15 , 2015. Accessible: http://www.ibtimes.com/joe-biden-backed-bills-make-it-harder-americans-reduce-their-student-debt-2094664

More than a third of college graduates say they would not have attended college had they known what it would cost: Buyer's Remorse

Jessica Dickler reported recently on a survey of college graduates conducted by Citizens Bank. According to Dickler, the survey found that 36 percent of the students surveyed said they would not have attended college had they known what it would cost them. And half said they regretted the amount of indebtedness they incurred to get their college degrees.

Even more startling, the survey found that 60 percent of college graduates had no idea when their loans would be paid off and a third didn't know the interest rate they were paying.

In addition, the same survey found that recent graduates are devoting about 20 percent of their salaries to student-loan payments and that most recent graduates expect to be paying on their student loans until they are in their 40s.  As a consequence, survey respondents reported, they have limited amounts of money to spend on travel, housing, eating out, and entertainment.

I wonder if Citizens Bank will rethink its student-loan policy based on the results of its survey. It was Citizens, you may recall, that loaned $161,000 to Lorelei Decena so she could attend an unaccredited medical school in Africa. Decena successfully discharged her debt to Citizens based on the fact that the school she attended was not on the U.S. Department of Education's approved list of schools

Do you suppose Decena took Citizens' survey? If so, was she was one of the 36 percent who said they regretted their college experience?

References

Decena v. Citizens Bank, 549 B.R. 11 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2016).

Jessica Dickler. Buyer's College buyer's remorse is real. CNBC News, April 7, 2016. Accessible at http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/07/college-buyers-remorse-is-real.html

Jessica Dickler. College costs are out of control. CNBc News, July 16, 2016. Accessible at http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/college-costs-are-out-of-control.html

Citizens Bank. Millennial College Graduates with Student Loans Now Spending Nearly One-Fifth of Their Annual Salaries on Student Loan Repayments. April 7, 2016. Accessible at http://investor.citizensbank.com/about-us/newsroom/latest-news/2016/2016-04-07-140336028.aspx

The Department of Education almost always fights bankruptcy relief for distressed college-loan borrowers--even when it pointless to do so: You'll never get out of this world alive.

I'll never get out of this world alive.

Hank Williams

Last July, Lynn Mahaffie, Deputy Secretary of Education, issued an insincere letter regarding the Department of Education's position concerning bankruptcy relief for college-loan debtors.

In that letter, Mahaffie outlined when DOE would not oppose bankruptcy relief for student-loan borrowers. She listed eleven factors to consider when determining when DOE would agree to permit a bankrupt debtor to discharge student loans in a bankruptcy court. Besides, Mahadffie said the Department would not oppose a bankruptcy discharge if it would not make economic sense to fight a student-loan borrower's petition for relief.

But in fact, Mahaffie wasn't telling the truth. Bankruptcy court opinions decided after Mahaffie wrote her letter show that DOE opposes bankruptcy relief for almost everyone--even when it is evident a debtor will never repay his or her college loans.

Let's review Kelly v. U.S. Department of Education, decided less than two months ago. Cynthia Kelly, a woman in her sixties, filed for bankruptcy in August 2014. At the time of her filing, Kelly had accumulated $160,000 in college-loan debt; and she had had no steady employment for almost 10 years. In fact, she was receiving nearly $200 a month from the local Department of Social Services in food assistance.

Before filing, Kelly was approved for an "Income-Contingent Repayment Plan" (ICRP) that reduced her monthly student-loan payment obligation to zero because her income was so low. Based on her employment history, it seems highly unlikely that Kelly will ever be required to pay a single penny on her student loans under her ICRP because she will probably live at the poverty level for the rest of her life.

Nevertheless, the Department of Education opposed Kelly's bankruptcy application to discharge her student loans, and Judge David Warren, a North Carolina bankruptcy judge, refused to release her from the debt. In the judge's view, Kelly failed the second prong of the Brunner "undue hardship" test because she could not show "additional circumstances" that precluded her from paying back her loans in the future.

Indeed, Judge Warren was totally unsympathetic to Ms. Kelly's situation.  The judge pointed out that Kelly had taken out student loans over a period of 40 years and had paid almost none of it back (less than $2,300).  Moreover, she had left a secure job with a pharmaceutical company in 2004 to do community service work and had never had steady employment since that time. Although Kelly argued that she had made diligent efforts to find remunerative work, Judge Warren ruled that there was no evidence that she had ever "pounded the payment" to find a job.

Judge Warren pointed out that Kelly appeared to be in good health and was well educated, having both a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate. He seemed offended by the fact that a highly educated person was getting food assistance.  Kelly's "lack of desire and motivation is an insult to those similarly situated," the judge observed, "especially to those lacking the gift of an education." In the judge's opinion, this insult was further compounded "by [Kelly's] complacent acceptance of welfare . . . "

I fully agree with Judge Warren that Kelly is not an attractive candidate for bankruptcy relief.  As the judge pointed out, Kelly took out student loans for nearly 40 years to obtain a lot of post-secondary education. Yet, she chose to live a "voluntary lifestyle" of community service rather than make reasonable efforts to maximize her income.

But let's face it. Ms. Kelly (or Dr. Kelly) will never pay off $160,000 in student loans. Her ICRP requires her to pay nothing due to her poverty-level income. It is totally unrealistic to believe that a woman in her sixties who hasn't held a steady job in ten years will obtain a well-paying job in today's economy.

Moreover, the colleges and universities that took Ms. Kelly's tuition money over a forty-year period bear a good deal of the blame for the situation Kelly is in now. According to Judge Warren, Kelly enrolled at multiple institutions, including Stone School, University of New Haven, Southern New Hampshire University, Spelman College, Drew University, South New Hampshire University, University of Mount Olive, and Shaw University.

Perhaps Kelly is not deserving of bankruptcy relief, but denying her that relief will not get the taxpayers' money back. The Department of Education would be more honest with taxpayers if it allowed people in Kelly's position to shed their debt in a bankruptcy court and then took steps to prevent colleges all over the United States from enrolling students in programs that will never pay off financially.

But that will never happen because the colleges can't survive without federal student-aid money, including money they get from admitting students to programs that have no economic benefit for the people who complete them.

References

Kelly v. U.S. Department of Education, 548 B.R. 99 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2016).

Lynn Mahaffie, Undue Hardship Discharge of Title IV Loans in Bankruptcy Adversary Proceedings. CL ID: GEN 15-13, July 7, 2015.

The Department of Education almost always fights bankruptcy relief for distressed college-loan borrowers--even when it pointless to do so: You'll never get out of this world alive.

I'll never get out of this world alive.

Hank Williams

Last July, Lynn Mahaffie, Deputy Secretary of Education, issued an insincere letter regarding the Department of Education's position concerning bankruptcy relief for college-loan debtors.

In that letter, Mahaffie outlined when DOE would not oppose bankruptcy relief for student-loan borrowers. She listed eleven factors to consider when determining when DOE would agree to permit a bankrupt debtor to discharge student loans in a bankruptcy court. Mahadffie said the Department would not oppose a bankruptcy discharge if it would not make economic sense to fight a student-loan borrower's petition for relief.

But in fact, Mahaffie wasn't telling the truth. Bankruptcy court opinions decided after Mahaffie wrote her letter show that DOE opposes bankruptcy relief for almost everyone--even when it is apparent a debtor will never repay his or her college loans.

Let's review Kelly v. U.S. Department of Education, decided less than two months ago. Cynthia Kelly, a woman in her sixties, filed for bankruptcy in August 2014. At the time of her filing, Kelly had accumulated $160,000 in college-loan debt; and she had had no steady employment for almost 10 years. In fact, she was receiving nearly $200 a month from the local Department of Social Services in food assistance.

Before filing, Kelly was approved for an "Income-Contingent Repayment Plan" (ICRP) that reduced her monthly student-loan payment obligation to zero because her income was so low. Based on her employment history, it seems highly unlikely that Kelly will ever be required to pay a single penny on her student loans under her ICRP because she will probably live at the poverty level for the rest of her life.

Nevertheless, the Department of Education opposed Kelly's bankruptcy application to discharge her student loans, and Judge David Warren, a North Carolina bankruptcy judge, refused to release her from the debt. In the judge's view, Kelly failed the second prong of the Brunner "undue hardship" test because she could not show "additional circumstances" that precluded her from paying back her loans in the future.

Indeed, Judge Warren was totally unsympathetic to Ms. Kelly's situation.  The judge pointed out that Kelly had taken out student loans over a period of 40 years and had paid almost none of it back (less than $2,300).  Moreover, she had left a secure job with a pharmaceutical company in 2004 to do community service work and had never had steady employment since that time. Although Kelly argued that she had made diligent efforts to find remunerative work, Judge Warren ruled that there was no evidence that she had ever "pounded the payment" to find a job.

Judge Warren pointed out that Kelly appeared to be in good health and was well educated, having a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate. He seemed offended by the fact that a highly educated person was getting food assistance.  Kelly's "lack of desire and motivation is an insult to those similarly situated," the judge observed, "especially to those lacking the gift of an education." In the judge's opinion, this insult was further compounded "by [Kelly's] complacent acceptance of welfare . . . "

I fully agree with Judge Warren that Kelly is not an attractive candidate for bankruptcy relief.  As the judge pointed out, Kelly took out student loans for nearly 40 years to obtain a lot of post-secondary education. Yet, she chose to live a "voluntary lifestyle" of community service rather than make reasonable efforts to maximize her income.

But let's face it. Ms. Kelly (or Dr. Kelly) will never pay off $160,000 in student loans. Her ICRP requires her to pay nothing due to her poverty-level income. It is totally unrealistic to believe that a woman in her sixties who hasn't held a steady job in ten years will obtain a well-paying job in today's economy.

Moreover, the colleges and universities that took Ms. Kelly's tuition money over a forty-year period bear a good deal of the blame for the situation Kelly is in now. According to Judge Warren, Kelly enrolled at multiple institutions, including Stone School, University of New Haven, Southern New Hampshire University, Spelman College, Drew University, South New Hampshire University, University of Mount Olive, and Shaw University.

Perhaps Kelly is not deserving of bankruptcy relief, but denying her that relief will not get the taxpayers' money back. The Department of Education would be more honest with taxpayers if it allowed people in Kelly's position to shed their debt in a bankruptcy court and then took steps to prevent colleges all over the United States from enrolling students in programs that will never pay off financially.

But that will never happen because the colleges can't survive without federal student-aid money, including money they get from admitting students to programs that have no economic benefit for the people who complete them.

References

Kelly v. U.S. Department of Education, 548 B.R. 99 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2016).

Lynn Mahaffie, Undue Hardship Discharge of Title IV Loans in Bankruptcy Adversary Proceedings. CL ID: GEN 15-13, July 7, 2015.

Vermont lawmakers urge Congress to lift bankruptcy restrictions for distressed college-loan borrowers: Bernie Sanders, here's your cue!

Earlier this week, the Vermont House of Representatives adopted a resolution urging Congress to allow distressed student-loan borrowers to file for bankruptcy without restriction. In effect, the Vermont lawmakers asked Congress to repeal the "undue hardship" provision of the Bankruptcy Code.

The measure had broad support among Vermont legislators.  The resolution was sponsored by more than 70 of  the Vermont House's 150 representatives.

This is an amazing development. Everyone knows the federal student loan program is in crisis and that millions of college-loan borrowers are burdened by massive debt they can't pay back. Congress won't do anything about it because our federal legislators have been bought off by the college industry and the banks. Now we have a state legislative body asking for bankruptcy relief.

Joint House Resolution 27, as the Vermont resolution is titled, is remarkable for its clarity.  As the resolution stated: "27 million borrowers are either in default or some other form of loan repayment delinquency . . . "  Moreover, the Vermont legislators pointed out, plans to reduce interest rates or restructure the student loan program might be helpful to future borrowers, but these proposals do nothing to help people who are suffering right now.

I hope other state legislatures across the United States will follow the lead of the Vermont House of Representatives and call for the elimination of bankruptcy restrictions for desperate college-loan borrowers.  Multiple state-level legislative resolutions would put huge pressure on Congress to quit doing the bidding of the college industry and amend the Bankruptcy Code.

And here is an opening for Bernie Sanders.  If he would endorse Joint House Resolution 27 and call for a reform of the Bankruptcy Code, he would attract even more voters.  At the very least, Bernie's endorsement might force Hillary Clinton to endorse Resolution 27 as well.  So far, her only plan for reforming the federal student loan program is to shovel more money toward the inefficient, corrupt, and venal higher education industry.

Hooray for the state legislators in Vermont.  Bernie, please jump on board. The time for action is now.

Vermont lawmakers urge Congress to lift restrictions on bankruptcy for student-loan borrowers

References

Micahel Bielawski. Vermont House asks Congress to let student-loan borrowers file for bankruptcy. VermongtWatchdog.org, May 3, 2016.  Accessible at http://watchdog.org/264079/legislature-requests-student-debt-relief-bankruptcy/

Law graduates can discharge bar-exam loans in bankruptcy but not student loans to go to law school

Lesley Campbell graduated from Pace University School of Law in 2009, but she didn't pass the bar exam. According to the Wall Street Journal, her total student-loan debt is now nearly $300,000.

After obtaining her JD degree, Campbell  took a secretarial job that paid $49,000 a year; and she filed for bankruptcy in 2014. Although she did not discharge her student loans, a bankruptcy judge did allow her to discharge a $15,000 loan she obtained from Citibank to pay for her bar review course.

A few brief comments on Ms. Campbell's case. First, people who take on $300,000 in student-loan debt to go to law school and don't pass the bar exam obviously suffer a financial catastrophe. Unless they obtain bankruptcy relief, most will never recover. In other words, for these people, going to law school destroyed their financial future instead of making it brighter.

Second, I was amazed by how much it costs just to take the bar-exam review course--$15,000! When I went to law school (a long time ago, I admit), the bar review course cost only $600, which I paid in installments with money I made working as a part-time law clerk. If I were graduating from law school today, I would be forced to take out a sizable loan just to prepare for my bar exam.

Finally, I was struck by the heartlessness of the online comments that followed the Wall Street Journal article about Ms. Campbell. One person commented that a person who would borrow $300,000 to attend law school obviously isn't smart enough to pass the bar.

As many commentators have written, a bleak job market and the skyrocketing cost of law-school tuition have combined to created a crisis in the legal profession.On average, people leave law school with $140,000 in student-loan debt only to enter an economy that only needs one lawyer for every two law-school graduates.

Greedy law schools and the American Bar Association created this crisis. The law schools set tuition levels far too high, and the ABA allowed law schools to admit far too many students.  As a result, thousands of law-school graduates share Leslie Campbell's predicament-- an onerous level of student-loan debt and no law job.

The ABA and the law schools have a moral obligation to advocate for reforms in the Bankruptcy Code that will allow impoverished law-school graduates to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy. But we haven't heard a peep out of the law schools or the ABA regarding bankruptcy reform for student-loan debtors.

References

Katy Stech. Judge Says Bankrupt Law Grads Can Cancel Bar Loans. Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2016.  Accessible at http://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-says-bankrupt-law-grads-can-cancel-bar-loans-1458941328

If I Had a Hammer! With great courage, distressed student-loan debtors all over America are going into the bankruptcy courts and petitioning for justice

If I had a hammer,

I'd hammer in the morning,
I'd hammer in the evening,
All over this land,
I'd hammer out danger,
I'd hammer out a warning,
I'd hammer out love between,
My brothers and my sisters,
All over this land.

It's the hammer of Justice,
It's the bell of Freedom,
It's the song about Love between my brothers and my sisters,
All over this land.

Peter, Paul & Mary

Our government has committed a grave injustice on working Americans--young and old--by dispensing student-money recklessly to millions of people who accepted the money in good faith in the hope that they could use their student-loan funds to educate themselves and have better lives.

In effect, the government has engaged in predatory lending--something you and I would go to jail for. It has spewed billions of dollars around the United States for the benefit of sleazy colleges--public, private, and for-profit--knowing that nearly half the people who got the loan dollars would not be able to pay off their student loans. And this money got sucked up by the college industry. 

After lending the money like a benevolent grandmother giving out Christmas checks to her grandkids, the government then morphed into a heartless monster. In fact, all three branches of our federal government have conspired to grind student-loan debtors into the dust.

• Congress passed laws making it extremely difficult for people to discharge their student-loan debt in bankruptcy.

• Congress enacted legislation that wiped out the statute of limitations for collection lawsuits against student-loan debtors--essentially destroying a key principle of the common law of equity.

• The Department of Education allows for-profit colleges to insert "you can't sue me" clauses in their college-admissions materials.

• The Supreme Court, an assembly of nine old geezers, upheld a federal law that allows the Department of Education to garnish Social Security checks of elderly people who defaulted on their student loans.

More than 40 million people carry student-loan debt, and 20 million can't pay it back. They are trapped like rats while the government and its collection agencies conspire to drive student-loan debtors out of the economy and out of the middle class into a dark world of hopelessness.  

Our government leaders pretend to be sympathetic. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Charles Schumer coo soothingly about lower interest rates. President Obama spins out one long-term repayment plan after another.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan issues press releases announcing lower default rates, knowing that DOE is cooking the books.

This scheme--driven by the greed and indifference of higher-education leaders--cries out for justice, for a return to common decency.

And a few people, like Peter Finch's character in the movie Network, have stood up and said, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."  Going into the bankruptcy courts, often without attorneys, a few intrepid souls have applied to have their student loans discharged in bankruptcy. Not all of them have been successful, but all have shown great courage.

So in this posting, I pay tribute to the grit and the bravery of the people who filed adversary actions in the bankruptcy courts to throw off their student-loan debt:

Alethea Lamento, single mother of two, who was working full time but who was forced to live with relatives because she did not make enough money to house her family. A bankruptcy court discharged her student loans over the objection of the Department of Education.

Lamento v. U.S. Department of Education, 520 B.R. 667 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2014)

George and Melanie Johnson, a married couple with two children who lost their home in foreclosure and who defeated Educational Credit Management Corporation in an adversary proceeding in Kansas. And they did it without a lawyer!

Johnson v. ECMC, Case No. 11-23108, Adv. No. 11-6250 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2015)

Bradley Myhre, a quadriplegic working full time but did not make enough money to support himself because he was required to pay a fulltime caregiver just to feed and dress him and transport him back and forth to work. The Department of Education refused to forgive his student loans, but Myhre beat DOE in an adversary proceeding.

Myhre v. U.S. Department of Education, 503 B.R. 698 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2013)

Alexandra Acosta-Conniff, an Alabama school teacher and single mother of two, who went into the bankruptcy court without a lawyer and discharged student-loan debt over the opposition of Educational Credit Management Corporation.  

Acosta-Conniff v. ECMC, 536 B.R. 326 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2015)

Ronald Joe Johnson, a grandfather in his early 50s who took out student loans in the early 1990s to pursue a college degree he was unable to complete and is now living with his wife on about $2,000 a month. Unfortunately, Johnson did not have a lawyer, and the Department of Education persuaded a bankruptcy judge not to discharge Johnson's student loans. 

Johnson v. U.S. Department of Education, 541 B.R. 759 (N.D. Ala. 2015)

Michael Abney, a single father of two with a record of homelessness who is living on less than $1200 a month, in spite of the fact he is working fulltime as a delivery driver. Acting as his own attorney, he defeated the U.S. Department of Education in a Missouri bankruptcy court.

Abney v. U.S. Department of Education, 540 B.R. 681 (W.D. Mo. 2015)

All these people are heroes, as brave in their own way as the farmers who defied the British army on Concord bridge in 1775, as brave as the heroes of the Alamo, as brave as the Okies who were driven off their farms during the Great Depression and took their families to Oklahoma in search of a better life.

Let us hope these heroes will inspire others to take the brave step of going into the bankruptcy courts to throw off their student-loan debt.  With each pasisng months, the bankruptcy courts are growing more sympathetic. 

Kelly v. Sallie Mae & Educational Credit Management Corporation: Fees, Interest and Penalties Are Dragging Down Student-Loan Debtors

Some policy experts argue that there is no crisis in the student loan program. Most students borrow only modest amounts of money, they say. The people who owe more than $100,000 are just a tiny fraction of the 41 million student-loan borrowers.

But this argument fails to take into account interest, penalties, and fees that borrowers accumulate if they run into financial trouble and can't make their loan payments.  Some distressed borrowers obtain economic-hardship deferments or forbearances that excuse them from making payments. But the fees and interest that accrue over time can double, triple, or even quadruple the size of their loan balance. When that happens, they are doomed.

And here's a case that illustrates my point: Kelly v. Sallie Mae, Inc. (2015). Laura Kelly borrowed about $24,000 to pay for her undergraduate degree in political science at Seattle University. She made payments for eight years, but she ran into financial trouble and filed for bankruptcy in 2008.

By the time Kelly entered bankruptcy, her debt had more than QUADRUPLED to $105,000 due to collection fees and accumulated interest. She filed an adversary proceeding to clear this debt, and a bankruptcy court gave her a partial discharge. The court concluded that Kelly was unable to pay off her loans, that her financial situation was not likely to improve soon, and that she had acted in good faith in the way she had handled her indebtedness.

Sallie Mae and Educational Credit Management Corporation, perhaps the most ruthless of the federal government's debt collectors, appealed the bankruptcy court's decision; and a federal district court reversed. The district court upheld the lower court's conclusion that Kelly could not pay back the hundred grand and still maintain a minimal standard of living. And it upheld the conclusion that Kelly's financial situation would not improve soon.

But the district court reversed the bankruptcy court's conclusion that Kelly had acted in good faith. The district court thought Kelly should have explored alternative payment plans, including a Public Service loan-payment program. And it also believed she could cut her expenses and make some sort of loan payment.  "In short," the district court ruled, "Ms. Kelly made no effort, much less good faith effort, to repay her loans."

Proceeding without a lawyer, Kelly appealed the district court's opinion to the next level: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit, considerably more compassionate than the district court, reversed the district court's decision and reinstated the bankruptcy court's partial discharge. This is what the Ninth Circuit said:

The bankruptcy court justified its conclusion that Kelly had acted in good faith with reference to its findings that, among other things, Kelly had maximized her income, had incurred only marginally excessive expenses, paid thousands of dollars toward her student debt over an eight year period before filing for bankruptcy, and at least minimally investigated payment alternatives such as debt consolidation, deferment, and a federal loan repayment program. . . . Moreover, though Kelly did not pursue loan repayment options, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in its conclusion that Kelly had a good-faith belief that she was ineligible for the program, and that applying for the program would have been futile since she could not afford the payments after consolidation. 

The Ninth Circuit's Kelly decision is significant for three reasons:

1) First, Kelly successfully fought Sallie Mae and Educational Credit Management Corporation, two of the federal government's most sophisticated and relentless  debt collectors, without a lawyer all the way to the Ninth Circuit.  But look how long the process took. Kelly filed for bankruptcy in 2008, and the Ninth Circuit didn't issue its opinion until 2015. Most debtors wouldn't have the stamina for a seven-year court fight, which is what ECMC and Sallie Mae are counting on. Thus, Kelly should be saluted as a hero for fighting ECMC and Sallie Mae for so long.

2) Second, the Kelly decision is one of a string of recent federal appellate court decisions that ruled in favor of student-loan debtors. Kelly is not as significant as the Ninth Circuit BAP Court's Roth decision or the Seventh Circuit's Krieger decision. Nevertheless, by upholding the bankruptcy court's decision to grant Kelly some relief, the Ninth Circuit has signaled that it will support compassionate bankruptcy courts that rule in favor of student-loan debtors if those rulings are grounded in solid fact findings.

3) Third, and most importantly, Kellv v. Sallie Mae & ECMC dramatically demonstrates how penalties, accumulated interest, and collection fees can turn a manageable debt into a nightmare.  Kelly only borrowed $24,000 to pay for her college education. By the time she arrived in bankruptcy court, the debt had quadrupled in spite of the fact that she had made loan payments for eight years.

Kelly's case is not unusual. I know a student-loan debtor who borrowed around $80,000 to attend graduate school and made payments totally approximately $40,000. The Department of Education now says he owes $315,000!

Our government has designed a student-loan program that is totally insane. For many students, it is the fees, penalties and accumulated interest that are sinking them--not the amount of the original debt.

References

Educational Credit Management Corporation v. Kelly, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56052 (Bankr. W. D. Wash. 2012), reversed, Kelly v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 594 Fed. App. 413 (9th Cir. 2015).

Kelly v.Sallie Mae, Inc. & Educational Credit Management Corporation, 594 Fed. App. 413 (9th Cir. 2015).

Natalie Kitroeff. Loan Monitor Is Accused of Ruthless Tactics On Student Debt. New York Times, January 1, 2014. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/us/loan-monitor-is-accused-of-ruthless-tactics-on-student-debt.html?_r=0

Krieger v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 713 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2013).

Roth v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 409 B.R. 908 9th Cir. BAP 2013).  

An episode of The Walking Dead: Why did the U.S. Department of Education oppose bankruptcy relief for a quadriplegic student-loan debtor?

America's insolvent student-loan debtors are the walking dead

America's student-loan crisis is beginning to resemble an episode of The Walking Dead.  Like zombies, millions of distressed student-loan debtors stumble around the American landscape, basically pushed out of the economy and suffering in silence.

Just as Deputy Sheriff Rick tries to elude the zombies in Walking Dead, President Obama treads lightly, hoping to avoid encountering the millions of student-loan defaulters. Deputy Sheriff Rick doesn't have enough shotgun shells to dispatch all "the walkers" if they show up en masse; and the Obama administration doesn't have the intellectual or moral resources to deal with the masses of people whose lives were destroyed by their student loans.

Insolvent student-loan debtors: The Walking Dead

Basically the culprits who created the student-loan crisis or helped hide its magnitude--Congress, colleges and universities, think tanks like the Brookings Institution, the Department of Education, the College Board--are huddled in their bastions much like the characters in The Walking Dead, who holed up in an abandoned department store for awhile, hoping someone with a little courage and intelligence would come to their rescue.

Of course, if the United States was a humane society--which it isn't--people who were overwhelmed by student-loan debt could discharge their loans in bankruptcy. But Congress passed several laws making it quite difficult for insolvent student-loan debtors to get relief from the bankruptcy courts.

Still--a few brave souls make the effort, filing adversary actions in the bankruptcy courts, often without lawyers. And recently, the bankruptcy courts have begun to take notice of the nightmare that the student-loan program has become; and the courts have been discharging some student loans.

But every time an intrepid spirit tries to get relief from oppressive student loans in a bankruptcy court, lawyers for the Department of Education or one of the government's private debt-collection agencies show up to oppose relief. In fact, it is fair to say that the official position of the U.S. government--President Obama's government--is that no one should be relieved of student-loan debt in bankruptcy.

In virtually every student-loan bankruptcy case, the lawyers for DOE and the debt-collection companies argue that student-loan debtors should be put in 25-year income-based repayment plans (IBRPs) rather than have their loans discharged. Of course, this is a heartless position to take, and in some cases it is downright ridiculous.

In Stevenson v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, for example, Educational Credit Management Corporation argued that a woman in her 50s, who had a record of homelessness and was living on less than $1000 a month, should be put in a 25-year IBRP in spite of her record of poverty and in spite of the fact that this woman didn't file for bankruptcy until 25 years after she took out her first student loan.  And the bankruptcy judge agreed! I don't know what ultimately happened to this poor woman, but apparently she was forced into a repayment plan that would not end until a half century after she first borrowed money to go to college.

Myhre v. U.S. Department of Education: DOE opposes bankruptcy relief for a quadriplegic student-loan debtor

But for utter, depraved heartlessness, my nomination goes to the bankruptcy case of Myrhe v. U.S. Department of Education, in which the Department of Education opposed bankruptcy relief for Bradley Myhre, a quadriplegic student-loan debtor who had no muscle control below his neck.  Myhre had suffered a catastrophic spinal injury in a swimming-pool accident, but he borrowed money to attend college and was able to work full-time. Unfortunately, his salary wasn't enough to cover the cost of paying his full-time caregiver--the person Myhre employed to feed, dress and bathe him and drive him back and forth to work.

Incredibly, DOE--Arne Duncan's DOE--opposed bankruptcy relief for Myhre and argued that he shouldn't have spent money for cable television since that was money he could have applied to paying off his student loans.

Fortunately for Mr. Myhre, the bankruptcy court rejected DOE's arguments and granted him relief from his student loans. In fact, the court praised him for his courage. "Mr, Myhre is an articulate and personable young man," the court observed, "whose mobility is determined by his wheelchair and dexterity is only sufficient to operate a directional stick control." Myhre's daily life required "bravery and tenacity," the court wrote," and Myhre had "made a truly admirable effort to return to work in order to support himself financially rather than remain reliant on government aid" (Myhre v. U.S. Department of Education, 2013, p. 704).

The Department of Education's lawyers are like Daryl in The Walking Dead

Why did the Department of Education take such a heartless position regarding Mr. Myhre's student loans? I'll tell you why. DOE is driven to stop every student-loan bankruptcy because if the bankruptcy courts ever begin reviewing the plight of insolvent student-loan debtors from a humane perspective, the judges would start granting bankruptcy relief to these unfortunate souls. And if that ever happenes, millions of honest but unfortunate people--and I mean literally millions--will be filing for bankruptcy, which would topple the entire corrupt and putrid student-loan program.  DOE simply can't let that happen.

Much like a DOE lawyer opposing bankruptcy relief for student-loan debtors, Daryl quietly dispatches zombies

And so when DOE's lawyers go to court to oppose bankruptcy relief for student-loan debtors, they behave much like Daryl in The Walking Dead.  Daryl kills zombies silently with his crossbow, dispatching them efficiently without making a noise that would attract other zombies. Likewise, DOE attorneys overwhelm student-loan debtors who go to bankruptcy court without lawyers, beating them down with canned legal briefs they keep on the hard drives of their government computers for just such contingencies.

The metaphor isn't perfect, of course. The "walkers" that Daryl drills through the brain with his arrows are frightening creatures, while the poor folks dispatched by DOE's lawyers are decent human beings entirely deserving of our pity and our aid. And of course, I would be  slandering Daryl to compare him to a DOE attorney!

But overall, I like the metaphor. Our insolvent student-loan debtors are very much like the zombies in The Walking Debt, and the Department of Education's lawyers are quite like Daryl, quietly picking off the "walkers" who make their way into the bankruptcy courts.

I don't know how this series will end, but I feel pretty sure some scary episodes lie ahead. If there is any justice in the world, distressed student-loan debtors will rise up one day by the millions; and America's cowardly politicians, college presidents, and policy wonks will wind up eating stale canned goods while holed up in the real-life equivalent of The Walking Dead's abandoned Center for Disease Control.

Quiet! Don't let the walkers hear you.

References

Myhre v. U.S. Department of Education, 503 B.R. 698 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2013).

Roth v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 490 B.R. 908 (9th Cir. BAP 2013).

Stevenson v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 436 B.R. 586 (Mass. Bankr. 2011).

By the thousands, student-loan borrowers are dropping out of income-based repayment plans

Thousands of student-loan borrowers are dropping out of income-based repayment plans, the U.S. Department of Education admitted recently. As reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education, almost 700,000 borrowers dropped out of the plans during the course of  just one year--57 percent of the total number of people who signed up for them.

Why did they drop out? DOE says they lost eligibility because they didn't file their annual income documentation--data the government needs to set borrowers' individual monthly payments.

What happened to those dropouts?  DOE says some of them signed up for economic-hardship deferments, some went back into standard 10-year repayment plans, and some slipped into delinquency.

This must be an astonishing turn of events for the Obama administration, which has aggressively promoted income-based repayment plans as a way to keep student-loan default rates down and give student borrowers some relief from high monthly loan payments. Most people who make monthly payments based on their income have lower payments than people who pay off their loans under the federal government's standard 10-year repayment plan.

There's a catch of course. Income-based repayment plans stretch borrowers' monthly payments out over 20 or even 25 years. Moreover, if borrowers' monthly payments are set too low, the payments will  not cover accruing interest, in which case student-loan debtors will see their loan balances go up rather than down, even if they faithfully make all their monthly payments.

Nevertheless, for student-loan borrowers who are unemployed. marginally employed, or simply borrowed too much money, income-based repayment plans are a lifeline because they can dramatically lower the amount of a student-loan borrower's monthly payments.

So what is the Obama administration doing to turn this situation around? According to the Chronicle,  the Department of Education will soon take over the process of notifying borrowers of their annual income-reporting obligations.  DOE is even consulting with "social and behavioral scientists" in order to craft more effective notices. Lots of luck, guys.

Personally, I was astonished to learn that so many people are falling out of income-based repayment plans--the most generous student-loan repayment programs that the federal government offers.. This development is simply another indication that the federal student-loan program is out of control.

Let's review the evidence one more time:

• The two-year student-loan default rate (the percentage of students from the most recent cohort who default on their loans within two years of beginning repayment) doubled in just seven years, according to DOE's own data. In 2007, DOE reported a two-year default rate of 4.7 percent. In 2013, the two-year default rate was 10 percent.

• Almost 9 million people in the repayment phase of their loans have economic-hardship deferments and are not making payments on their student loans. Meanwhile, their loan balances are increasing due to accruing interest.

• About 1.5 million people have signed up for income-based repayment plans, but more than half of them have already dropped out due to the fact that they didn't file their obligatory annual income reports.

We can tinker with the student-loan program in many ways as the Department of Education and the policy tanks are now doing. But the fact remains that millions of student-loan debtors are under water financially and have basically dropped out of the economy. This reality is illustrated by the fact that more that half of the people in the generous income-based repayment programs are not bothering to file their annual income reports.

The only way out of this morass is to admit how bad the crisis is, which will require DOE to tell the truth about the student-loan default rate. Then we need to crack down on higher-education institutions that are exploiting college students. Finally, we must open up the bankruptcy process to allow honest but unfortunate student-loan debtors to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy.

Bleep it, Dude. Let's go bowling. 

References

Robert Cloud & Richard Fossey, Facing the Student-Debt Crisis: Restoring the Integrity of the Federal Student Loan Program. Journal of College & University Law, 40, 467-498.

Kelly Field. Thousands Fall Out of Income-Based Repayment Plans. Chronicle of Higher Education, April 2, 2015.

Who turned on the gas at Auschwitz? Reflections on student-loan debtors in bankruptcy

Gas Chamber Door at Auschwitz--Looking Out

My father spent most of World War II as a a prisoner of war in Japanese concentration camps.

He was captured in the Philippines when the entire American army surrendered to Japanese forces in April 1942, and he survived the Bataan Death March. He remained a prisoner until August 1945, after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Two thirds of the men who were captured with my father did not survive the War. Some were summarily executed during the Bataan Death March or later, some died of starvation or disease, and a number committed suicide. The experiences of the American prisoners of war in the Pacific are never compared to the Holocaust, but perhaps they should be.

In any event, my father's concentration camp experiences (which he often talked about when I was a child) have caused me to ponder again and again this question: How can people lose their humanity to the extent that they can kill defenseless people without remorse and even without thinking about it seriously? Who turned on the gas at Auschwitz day after day as all those Jews were gassed to death? And did those people go home to their families when their work days ended to eat a nice meal and perhaps listen to the radio?

Recently, I returned to this question  after reading several of the published bankruptcy decisions involving student-loan debtors.  In the Myhre case, for example, how could attorneys for the U.S. Department of Education oppose the discharge of student loans owed by a paraplegic man who was working full time and whose expenses exceeded his income?

And in the Stevenson case, how could lawyers for Educational Credit Management Corporation argue that a woman in her fifties who had a history of homelessness and was living on less than $1000 per month, be placed on a 25-year income-based repayment plan to pay off her student loans?

And in the Roth case, how could attorneys for the same company--headed at the time by a man who made more than $1 million dollars a year), stand before a bankruptcy judge and maintain that a woman in her sixties, who had chronic health problems and was living entirely off Social Security income of less than $800 a month, should not have her student loans discharged in bankruptcy?

I listened recently to the audio of a bankruptcy proceeding in California involving a man with more than a quarter million dollars of student-loan debt.  The man brought an adversary proceeding seeking to discharge his loans in bankruptcy.  His suit was opposed by two parties: the U.S. Department of Education and a private loan company.

Judging by their voices, the U.S Department of Education and the private company were both represented by young women.  Both argued that the man--in his 50s and making less than $2,000 a month, should not have his student-loan debts discharged.

I imagine both women graduated from good law schools, are kind to animals, and have progressive views on the political issues of the day--global warming, for example.

So how could these smart and presumably sensitive young women be working for a governmental entity and a private company engaged in the reprehensible business of stopping distressed student-loan debtors from bankruptcy relief?

I don't mean to compare these two young lawyers to the people who operated the Nazi death camps, but the insensitivity to the unjust suffering of others is somewhat similar. Millions of Americans are burdened by student-loan debt that is totally unmanageable and will never be paid off; and yet our government employs lawyers to prevent them from obtaining bankruptcy relief.

And, let us remind ourselves that the U.S. Department of Education, the agency that sought to deny bankruptcy relief to a paraplegic student-loan debtor in the Myhre case, answers to a president who won the Noble Peace Prize.

How long can the injustice and suffering spawned by the federal student loan program go on? A long time I fear. Slavery existed in this country for well over 200 years.

But ultimately, this trillion-dollar house of cards we call the federal student loan program will come tumbling down; and when it collapses it will take American higher education with it and perhaps the American economy.

That is something for American college presidents to think about as they fly around in their private jets and drink premium liquor with wealthy alumni.  University foundation board members should think about it as well before they execute multi-million dollar contracts with celebrity football coaches.

And mom and pop should think about it too before they encourage little Suzie and little Johnny to take out loans to go to an over-priced, pretentious East-Coast college.  Because when little Suzie and little Johnny take out those loans, they will live with them until they are payed off  in full or until little Suzie and Little Johnie are dead.

And if they try to discharge their loans in bankruptcy, a bright young lawyer who graduated from an elite law school--someone very much like the person who turned on the gas at Auschwitz--will be in federal bankruptcy court to keep that from happening.

There's No Fool Like an Old Fool: The New York Times Just Doesn't Get It When It Comes to the Student Loan Crisis

Today, the New York Times published an editorial on the Obama administration's efforts to encourage student-loan  servicers to be less rapacious.  According to the Times, the government is changing the incentive structures so that loan-collection companies have a financial incentive to help rehabilitate student loans that are delinquent instead of pushing borrowers into default.

The Times approves of reforms that will encourage students to sign up for Income-Based Repayment Plans, plans that will have borrowers paying a percentage of their income for the next 25 years. Some reform!  The Times also likes the new rule that will give more weight to customer satisfaction surveys "in determining how well servicers do their jobs."  That idea is about as radical as Aunt Sadie's Buick Regal.

The Times editorial then goes on to say that Obama's reform efforts don't go far enough. So what does the Times suggest? "More should be done to improve competition and transparency [among loan servicers]," the Times recommends.  Borrowers should be able to jump from one loan servicer to another, the Times adds, and "set significant penalties for poor practices and create a portal where borrowers can get information about their accounts and report abuses to the Education Department instead of to the abusers."

This is the kind of timid advice you would expect from a newspaper that gets a lot of its revenue from advertising luxury goods that are targeted at its fat cat readers. I'm glad the Times wasn't in charge of negotiating with Adolph Hitler during World War II. It probably would have editorialized that Hitler needed to paint the concentration-camp barracks a more soothing color.

The Times does not seem to realize that people who fall into the hands of the student-loan servicers are dealing with truly heartless entities.  Here are some examples:

•  Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC) opposed bankruptcy relief for a 63-year old man who had been unemployed for 12 years, whose home was going into foreclosure, and who had been living with his wife below the poverty level.  This man had accumulated student-loan debt in the neighborhood of $240,000. Murphy v. Educational Credit Management Corporation (2014). 
•  ECMC opposed bankruptcy relief for an elderly student-loan defaulter who had chronic health problems and who was living solely on Social Security checks of less than $800 a month. Roth v. Educational Credit Management Corporation (2013). 
•  ECMC opposed bankruptcy relief for another elderly woman with student-loan debt that was more than twenty years old and who had a salary of about $500 per month and a history of homelessness. Stevenson v. Educational Credit Management Corporation (2011).

How much do ECMC executives pay themselves to chase down poor and elderly student-loan debtors? A lot. Bloomberg reported in 2012 that Richard Boyle, ECMC's Chief Executive at the time, made $1.1 million  in 2010. I could not find more recent compensation information on Educational Credit Management Corporation's new CEO, a guy named Dave Hawn, but I'll bet that Hawn is making at least as much as Boyle made four years ago.

So, New York Times editorialists, take your tepid and inadequate editorial recommendations and stick them "where the sun don't shine"--which is within your timid and obsequious little hearts.

You want to clean up the student-loan collection business? Here are some suggestions:

1) First, President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan should instruct all the student-loan servicers not to oppose bankruptcy relief for any elderly student-loan debtor who is living solely on Social Security, who has suffered long-term unemployment, or who has no real prospect of every paying off student-loan debt.  And they should follow up with regulations or legislation that would make those instructions stick.

2)  The government needs to put an upper-limit on fees and accrued interest that get tacked on to student-loan defaulters' total loan obligations.  Several bankruptcy decisions have documented that debtors' original student loan balances had more than doubled by the time they filed for bankruptcy due to accrued interest, penalties and fees.

3) The Obama administration should propose amendments to the bankruptcy laws that will allow distressed student-loan debtors who took out loans in good faith to discharge their student loans in the bankruptcy process without going through expensive and traumatic adversary proceedings.

4) Obama should propose legislation to reinstate a reasonable statute of limitation on the collection of delinquent student-loan debt--say six years, which is the same time period that applies to the collection of most monetary obligations.

5) The President should demand legislation that would stop the federal government from garnishing the Social Security checks of elderly student-loan defaulters who are totally dependent on their Social Security pensions.

6) All the companies participating in the student-loan servicing industry should be required to post the compensation of all its senior executives online so that Americans can see just how much money so-called non-profit agencies are making on the suffering of student-loan debtors.

All these recommendations are reasonable and all are more humane than the puny little recommendations the Times made in its editorial page.  If the Times can't offer any suggestions more robust than it offered in its September 8th issue, then it should keep its mouth shut about the student-loan crisis and admit that all it is really concerned about when it comes to domestic economic issues is supporting Barack Obama and maintaining Democratic control of the White House.

References

A Fairer Shot for Student Debtors. New York Times, September 8, 2014, p. A16. 

John Hechinger. Taxpayers Fund $454,000 Pay for Collector Chasing Student Loans. Bloomberg.com, May 15, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-15/taxpayers-fund-454-000-pay-for-collector-chasing-student-loans.html

Brown, M., Haughwout, A., Lee, D., Mabutas, M., and van der Klaauw, W. (2012). Grading student loans. New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Accessible at: http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2012/03/grading-student-loans.html

Krieger v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 713 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2013).

Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142, 126 S. Ct. 699 (2005).

Murphy v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 511 B.R. 1 (D. Mass. 2014).

Roth v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 490 B.R. 908 (9th Cir. BAP 2013).

Stevenson v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 463 B.R. 586 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2011).