In re Standish: Should you be required to use your inheritance to pay off student debt?

 Martha Standish took out student loans when she was in her late 40s to get an undergraduate degree in accounting. Later she took out a Parent Plus Loan to help her daughter with college expenses.

Eleven years after graduating, Standish filed an adversary proceeding in a Kansas bankruptcy court seeking to discharge about $30,000 in student loans. By this time, she was 63 years old. She made $18.36 an hour working at an engineering firm, and her expenses slightly exceeded her income.

Bankruptcy Judge Robert Berger applied the Brunner test in deciding whether Ms. Standish qualified to have her student loans discharged under the Bankruptcy Code's "undue hardship" rule.  To be entitled to a student-loan discharge, Standish was required to make three showings:

1) "[S]he cannot maintain a minimal standard of living for herself and her dependents if forced to repay her student loans."

2)  "[A]dditional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs will persist [for] a significant portion of the repayment period . . . ."

3) "[S]he made good faith efforts to repay her loans."

After an extensive analysis, Judge Berger ruled in Standish's favor on two parts of the three-part Brunner test.  

First, he ruled that Standish could not maintain a minimal standard of living and make payments on her student loans. Thus, she met the first part of the Brunner test.

Second, Judge Berger ruled that Standish's dismal economic circumstances were unlikely to improve enough for her to pay off her student loans in the future. "As her age advances and her health deteriorates, she will soon reach a point at which her continuing employment is no longer possible," the judge observed. Moreover, Standish was unlikely to see her income go up. Based on these facts, Judge Berger ruled that Standish met the second part of the Brunner test.

Finally, regarding Brunner's "good faith" prong, Judge Brunner noted approvingly that Standish had "diligently minimized her expenses while maximizing the income she could earn with her degree." She also made payments on some of her loans while deferring others.

Nevertheless, Judge Berger ruled that Standish failed the good-faith prong of the Brunner test. 

Why? Because she received an inheritance and did not use the inheritance money to pay off her student loans. Instead, she used her inheritance to help pay for her daughter's education and other expenses. 

As Judge Berger explained:

[Standish's] decision to dedicate her inheritance to her daughter's education and other expenses prohibits the Court from finding that her pursuit of a discharge is in good faith. [Standish] received around $45,000 from her mother's estate. None of that money was used to pay the student loans. It is notable that this money would have been enough to pay off all or almost all her student loans.

Judge Berger clearly sympathized with Ms. Standish. He ruled in her favor on two parts of the Brunner test and only ruled against her on the good-faith standard because of her inheritance. "It is a tragic irony,' Judge Berger wrote, "that [Standish's] very efforts to relieve her daughter of the financial enserfment caused by student loan debt doomed her effort to discharge her own student loans."

Millions of Americans are burdened by student loans that prevent them from buying a home or saving for retirement. Some are probably counting on an inheritance to offset the catastrophe of their student debt.

But Judge Berger's decision--which is in harmony with current law--should be a wake-up call to student debtors who believe an inheritance will allow them to retire with dignity despite crushing student debt. As the Standish decision illustrates, an inheritance might foreclose bankruptcy relief for student borrowers even if they are otherwise qualified for relief under Brunner.

And--even more chilling to think about--the feds might try to garnish inheritance money from people who defaulted on their student loans. To my knowledge, this has not happened yet, but that possibility should not be discounted. 

Just another reason why Congress should amend the Bankruptcy Code and allow honest debtors to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy like any other nonsecured debt.

References

In re Standish, 628 B.R. 692 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2020).

Williams v. U.S. Department of Education: How does someone run up $400,000 in student-loan debt?

 In Greene v. U.S. Department of Education, Judge Richard Posner, a universally esteemed jurist, remarked that the criteria for determining "undue hardship" in student-loan bankruptcy cases are complex. Nevertheless, Judge Posner observed, "[t]he size of the debt is relevant--the larger it is, the more likely that imposing full liability on the debtor will produce an undue hardship . . ."

That makes perfect sense. Nevertheless, federal courts have refused to allow student-loan debtors to discharge their loans in bankruptcy even when the size of their college-loan debt is enormous and virtually impossible to pay off.

Williams v. U.S. Department of Education is a case in point. As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals explained, Williams began his college studies in 1982. "[O]ver the next three decades,[he] obtained a bachelor's degree in mathematics, a master's in communication, and a master's in business education." He financed these educational endeavors with student loans. By the time he filed for bankruptcy, he had run up $400,000 in student debt.

As the Seventh Circuit noted in its 2019 opinion, Williams had worked only part-time as a seasonal worker at a flower shop over the six previous years. His annual income was just $10,000.

After filing for bankruptcy, Williams entered into a 25-year, income-based repayment plan. Since his income was so low, he was required to pay nothing under that plan.

Williams tried to discharge this massive debt in an Illinois bankruptcy court, but he got nowhere. The bankruptcy judge refused to forgive his student loans, and the Seventh Circuit, in an opinion joined in by Judge Amy Barrett, affirmed the bankruptcy judge's decision.

Perhaps Mr. Williams was not the most attractive candidate for bankruptcy relief. As the Seventh Circuit pointed out: "If Williams continues what he has done for the last 6 years, which he concedes he can do, he need not pay anything on his debts for the next 25 years, at which point at least half the debt will be forgiven. That suggests no hardship."

Moreover, the Seventh Circuit continued, Williams had not provided any admissible evidence of a good-faith effort to repay his student loans.

Those efforts [ the appellate court observed] were virtually non-existent.  Despite his three degrees and his admitted ability to work full-time, he has worked only part-time in a floral shop for the last six years.  No admissible evidence explains the lack of higher-income work or why he has not, with about $3000 of annual net income, paid more than $140 toward lowering his debts.

I am not arguing that Williams should have gotten bankruptcy relief from his student loans. My point is simply this:  It is crazy for the federal government to issue student loans to an individual for three decades of college studies and then force that person into a 25-year repayment plan that allows him to pay nothing.

Surely we can all agree that this nutty system is unsustainable.

References

Greene v. U.S. Department of Education,  770 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2015).

Williams v. U.S. Department of Education, 752 Fed.Appx. 363 (7th Cir. 2019).

The federal student loan program is nutty.

Bankruptcy judge denies relief to student debtor who provides 24/7 care for elderly mother: What's the friggin' point?

In 1998, Guy DiFrancesco enrolled in a bachelor's degree program at Luzerne County Community College. He transferred to Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania and obtained a degree in political science in 2005. Later, DiFrancesco enrolled at East Stroudsburg University, where he earned a master's degree in American politics in 2008.

Continuing his studies, DiFrancesco enrolled in a PhD program at Marywood University, and he began another program at King's College, where he sought a teaching degree. He dropped out of both programs in order to provide around-the-clock care for his mother, who suffered a debilitating stroke in 2010.

According to a Pennsylvania bankruptcy court, DiFrancesco's last job was at an auto parts company, which he left in  2009 or 2010.  He financed his college and university studies by taking out student loans. By the time he filed for bankruptcy in 2019, DiFrancesco's accumulated student debt had grown to $200,000, which constituted 99 percent of his total indebtedness.

DiFrancesco attempted to clear all this debt in bankruptcy, but Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Judge Robert Opel II was unsympathetic. In Judge Opel's view, DiFrancesco had not made good faith efforts to repay his loans and thus they were nondischargeable.

It was uncontested, Judge Opel observed, that DiFrancesco had not made a single payment on his student loans. Furthermore, he had not maximized his earning potential. Indeed, according to Judge Opel, DiFrancesco had not sought employment of any kind.

Judge Opel conceded that DiFrancesco's mother's stroke and her need for 24/7 care were beyond DiFrancesco's control. Nevertheless, "his decision to not actively seek any form of employment since 2010 was well within his reasonable control." After all, the judge pointed out, DiFrancesco was "a healthy, forty-year-old man with no disability who holds a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and credits toward a PhD." Even taking his mother's incapacity into account, Judge Opel wrote, "this fails to establish that [DiFrancesco] could not have found any employment opportunities in the last ten years" (p. 168).

Perhaps Guy DiFrancesco is not the most sympathetic person to seek bankruptcy relief from massive student debt. Nevertheless, Judge Opel acknowledged that DiFrancesco and his mother lived on Social Security benefits totally only $15,000 a year. This paltry sum was the sole source of income to pay food, utilities, and roughly $4,000 a year in property taxes. Clearly, DiFrancesco and his mother lived at or below the poverty level. Is it good public policy to refuse bankruptcy relief to a man who is his mother's full-time caregiver and is too poor even to own a car?

But there is a more basic question that needs to be answered, which is this: What is the friggin' point of hanging $200,000 in debt on a man who hasn't worked since 2010 and is totally responsible for caring for his incapacitated mother?

Will Mr. DiFrancesco ever pay back this debt? No, he will not. Even if he signs up for a long-term, income-based repayment plan and makes token monthly payments on his student loans for 25 years, his debt will grow larger every month due to accumulating interest.

References

DiFrancesco v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 607 B.R. 463 (Bankr. M.D. Pa 2019).

East Stroudsburg University: "Where Warriors Belong" (whatever that means)