The Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: The President Scrambles to Appease College Debtors

 To no one's surprise, the Supreme Court struck down President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. The president should have seen it coming. He said himself that he doubted whether he had the authority to forgive student loans. Nevertheless, like a child in a temper tantrum, Biden blames the debacle on Republicans.

In a recent public statement, President Biden said he would “stop at nothing to find other ways to deliver relief to hard-working middle-class families.” The White House announced that the Department of Education is rolling out a new income-based repayment plan so generous that most college borrowers enrolled in the new program will pay little or nothing on their undergraduate federal loans.

Due to the COVID crisis, the Department of Education allowed 40 million student loan debtors to skip their loan payments for the past three years without accruing penalties. The Supreme Court’s decision means these borrowers must resume making monthly loan payments later this summer.

In typical govspeak, The White House said yesterday it will construct a bureaucratic “on ramp” to make it easier for student borrowers to repay their loans. As a practical matter, this on-ramp will encourage most debtors to delay making loan payments for another year.

 Why all this sturm and drang? Why all this turmoil? Why is the federal government constructing elaborate workarounds to the Supreme Court's decision?

If President Biden really means it when he says he will stop at nothing to deliver relief to middle-class families, he can do one simple thing. He can encourage Congress to amend the Bankruptcy Code to allow distressed student debtors to discharge their student loans in the bankruptcy courts. All Congress needs to do is delete two words from the Code: “undue hardship.”    

This solution to the student loan crisis is so simple that even a child can understand it. Why then has President Biden yet to endorse bankruptcy reform? Why didn't Democrats enact this reform when they had control of Congress? Why don't Republicans support it now?

I'll tell you why. Important political constituencies are happy with the status quo.  Colleges and universities benefit from a system that pumps billions of dollars of federal money into their coffers without holding them accountable in any way. Colleges are free to raise tuition year after year--forcing their students to borrow more and more money--without regard to whether the students can repay their loans.

The student loan crisis will not be solved until higher education is reformed. Unfortunately, colleges and universities. have no incentive to reform themselves. Thus, the student loan crisis will not be addressed until American higher education collapses.

Is college worth what it costs?

A Federal Court in Texas Blocks Biden's Student-Loan Forgiveness Plan. It May Be Years Before Student Debtors Know Whether the Plan is Legal

 President Joe Biden made a campaign pledge to forgive $10,000 in federal student loans. In August 2022, Biden announced that he would fulfill that pledge and offer $10,000 in student-loan forgiveness to anyone whose income is less than $125,000. People who received Pell grants while in college are eligible for $20,000 in student-debt relief.

Biden's Department of Education immediately began accepting applications for loan forgiveness. As of mid-November, 26 million college borrowers had filled out online applications.

Critics said that Biden was giving a benefit to people who don't need it. People who took out student loans to get a college diploma or a professional degree may very well be able to repay the debt. Critics also said that Biden is requiring blue-collar taxpayers who did not go to college to absorb the cost of loan forgiveness that benefited people who did go to college.

 Earlier this week, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Biden's program from being implemented nationwide.

Last week, in Brown v. Department of Education, Federal Judge Mark Pittman issued an important opinion on a challenge to Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan. Judge Pittman ruled that Biden's executive action was "unlawful" and vacated the entire program.

The Department of Education speedily appealed Judge Pittman's ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit is generally considered a conservative or moderate court, and I think it is likely that the court will uphold Judge Pittman.

Other cases will be filed in the coming months, and other judges may rule differently from Judge Pittman. If so, the legality of President Biden's $400 billion giveaway will go to the Supreme Court.

I predict President Biden's ill-considered bonanza will ultimately go down in flames like a World War II fighter plane in a vintage war movie. 

Why?

First,  DOE's primary argument appears to be that no one can challenge Biden's giveaway because no one was injured by it--it's just free money. 

But that's absurd. The Congressional Budget Office calculates that the program will cost $400 billion, and a Wharton School analysis predicts it will cost about a trillion bucks. The consequences to American taxpayers are enormous.

As Judge Pittman observed:

[N]o one can plausibly deny that it is one of the largest delegations of legislative power to the executive branch or one of the largest exercises of legislative power without congressional authority in the history of the United States.

 Second, even Representative Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, flatly said that President Biden does not have the legal authority to forgive a portion of student debt owed by more than 30 million people.  

People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. . . He does not. He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power. That has to be [accomplished through] an act of Congress. 

Finally, the plaintiffs argued that DOE launched its giveaway in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because it failed to comply with the notice-and-comment period that the APA required. That's an excellent argument. 

Betsy DeVos, President Trump's Education Secretary, lost dozens of lawsuits because DeVos's DOE tinkered with the federal student loan program without complying with the APA.  Many of those court decisions will be precedents in support of the plaintiffs challenging Biden's precipitous actions.

The federal student loan program is a trainwreck, and millions of Americans deserve relief from college loans they can never repay. But any relief program should be fair and motivated by sound public policy--not reckless handouts to cater to a political constituency.

Congress would take a giant step toward reforming the student loan program if it took just two words out of the Bankruptcy Code. Those two words are "undue hardship."

Honest but unfortunate college borrowers who are insolvent should have their student loans discharged through bankruptcy like any other nonsecured debt.  

Apparently, that simple and fair solution is too difficult for our politicians in Washington to grasp. Thus (with apologies to Eugene O'Neill), Biden's student-loan forgiveness fiasco begins a long day's journey into the dark night of protracted litigation in the federal courts. 

Ashline v. Department of Education: Dental Assistant with Master's Degree from Kaplan U. discharges $230,000 in student loan debt

 Diane Ashline, a 47-year old single mother, worked for 20 years as a dental assistant. Hoping to increase her income, she took out student loans to get an undergraduate degree and a master’s degree from Kaplan University, a for-profit school. Unfortunately, these degrees did not help her financially.

Ashline never defaulted on her student loans. Instead, she put them in forbearance during the times she was unable to make payments. Nevertheless, by the time she filed for bankruptcy in 2016, she had accumulated  $230,000 in student debt. 

The U.S. Department of Education DOE) insisted that Ashline be put in an income-based repayment plan (IBR), which would only require her to pay $65 a month.  But Judge Thad Collins, who presided over Ashline’s bankruptcy proceedings, rebuffed DOE’s arguments and discharged all of Ashline’s federal student debt.

The judge pointed out that “no evidence [had been] produced to suggest that [Ashline] would ever be able to leverage her unused master’s degree to obtain a higher paying job in the future.” In fact, he ruled, there was “no suggestion that her income would increase in any meaningful way over the remainder of her working life.”

Judge Collins emphatically rejected DOE’s demand that Ms. Ashline sign up for an IBR, partly due to her age. At the time Judge Collins issued his decision last December, Ashline was 50 years old. “Upon completion of a hypothetical IBRplan,” the judge observed, “she would be between 69 and 74 years old.”

Under an  IBR, the judge explained, interest on Ashline’s student loans would outpace her payments, and she would never pay off her debt.  Although the unpaid debt would be forgiven if she completed her IBR, the forgiven debt would be taxable to her. Ashline would then face a “student loan forgiveness tax bomb”--a tax bill for the entire amount of the forgiven debt.

Judge Collins summarized his ruling in favor of Ms. Collins with these words:

[T]he Court finds that [Ashline] has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that not discharging her student loans would impose an undue hardship on her and her dependents. She has maximized her earnings potential. Her future financial condition is not likely to improve to any significant degree. . . . Her expenses are not extravagant. Debtor has made the good faith effort to make payments on her student loans . . . and has deferred those payments when she was unable to make them.

Judge Collins’s decision joins a growing body of case law that rejects the argument that student debtors should sign up for IBRs instead of seeking bankruptcy relief. Indeed, Judge Collins himself has issued two other important decisions in which he discharged student debt.

Gradually, I believe the tide is turning in favor of distressed student-loan debtors in the bankruptcy courts. Increasingly, federal bankruptcy judges are recognizing that forcing college borrowers into IBRs makes no sense.

I hope the Ashline decision and other bankruptcy court decisions in a similar vein will encourage “honest but unfortunate” student-loan debtors to shed their unpayable student loans in a federal bankruptcy court.

References

Ashline v. U.S. Department of Education, Adversary No. 16-09028 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa, Sept. 28, 2021).

Elizabeth Lally, N.D. of Iowa Judge Collins Leads the Way On Discharge of Student Debt in the Eighth Circuit, Goosmann Law Firm (July 28, 2018).

In re Martin, 16-9052 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Feb. 16, 2018).

Fern v. FedLoan Servicing, 553 B.R. 362 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2016), aff’d 563 B.R. 1 (8th Cir. BAP 2017).

You Can Find Justice in the Bankruptcy Court of the NorthernDistrict of Iowa

Fern v. FedLoan Servicing, 553 B.R. 362 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2016), aff’d 563 B.R. 1 (8th Cir. BAP 2017).

 

Tingling v. ECMC: 52-year old student-loan debtor with multiple degrees loses her case before Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Bankruptcy is intended to give honest but unfortunate debtors a fresh start in life. People who mismanage their finances, spend money improvidently or go broke through their own stupidity can shed their debts in a bankruptcy court.

That is a good thing. 

But the Bankruptcy Code contains an exception for insolvent student-loan borrowers. Unless they can show "undue hardship," they can't get free of their college loans. 

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals defined undue hardship in its Brunner decision, rendered in 1987.  To qualify for a discharge of their student loans, debtors must make three showings: 

1) They cannot pay off their loans and maintain a minimum standard of living.  

2) Their financial condition is unlikely to improve over the terms of the loans.

3) They handled their student loans in good faith.  

Some commentators (including me) hope the Second Circuit will reconsider the harsh Brunner test and perhaps overrule it or at least interpret it more humanely.

Unfortunately, Tingling v. ECMC, decided about a month ago, is a signal that the Second Circuit is not willing to abandon Brunner.

Janet Tingling, age 52, tried to discharge student debt accumulated to obtain multiple degrees (a B.S. and M.S. in biology, an M.B.A., and a Doctorate in Business Administration). Her adjusted gross income was about $50,000 before filing bankruptcy. Her total student-loan debt (including principal, interest, fees, and costs) was $59,000.

Tingling was initially represented by a lawyer in her bankruptcy proceedings, but she released her attorney and pursued her adversary action alone.

Bankruptcy Judge Alan S. Trust denied Ms. Tingling's application to shed her student loans, finding that she failed all three parts of the Brunner test. She appealed to U.S. District Court Judge Joanna Seybert, and she upheld Judge Trust's ruling.

Last month, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Cabranes, Raggi, and Sullivan) upheld Judge Trust's bankruptcy opinion, ruling that he had applied the Brunner test correctly. The panel expressed no interest in modifying or overruling the Brunner standard.

I am not unduly disheartened by the Second Circuit's Tingling decision.  After all, Janet Tingling's situation was not as compelling as that of other more hard-pressed debtors who have wound up in a bankruptcy court. 

The Second Circuit pointed out that she "is of relatively young age (52 years old), in good health, possesses two graduate degrees in healthcare administration, lacks dependents, and, by all indications, is able to maintain her current level of income" (Tingling v. ECMC, 990 F.3d at 309).

I hope another debtor--someone in more desperate circumstances--takes her case to the Second Circuit and challenges the Brunner test.

 And I hope that person is represented by a competent and energetic lawyer.  Ms. Tingling was handicapped, no doubt, by the fact that she fought her case into the appellate courts on her own, without legal counsel to advise and assist her. 

References

Tingling v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 900 F.3d 304 (2d Cir. 2021).

Immigrant obtains medical degree, can't find MD job. Bankruptcy judge discharges $400,000 in student-loan debt

Seth Koeut was born in Cambodia and came to the United States as a child. Like many immigrants, he applied himself energetically to obtain a better life. He graduated 6th in his high school class and went on to earn two bachelor's degrees from Duke University.

Mr. Koeut then went to medical school and received an MD from Ponce School of Medicine in Puerto Rico. Somewhere along the way, he learned to speak English, Cambodian, Spanish, French, and Italian.

Although he passed his Medical Board exams, Koeut could not obtain a residency, which is a prerequisite to obtaining a medical license. After applying for residencies for five years, he gave up hope of becoming a licensed physician in the United States.

Over the years, Koeut held various jobs, including sales clerk at Banana Republic, a dishwasher at a Mexican restaurant, and parking lot signaler.

Finally, Koeut filed for bankruptcy and asked Bankruptcy Juge Margaret Mann to discharge his student-loan debt, which totaled $440,000. A vocational evaluation expert assessed Koeut's job prospects and said Koeut would need additional training to meet his employment potential.

The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) opposed Koeut's application for a student-loan discharge and argued that he should be put in a long-term, income-based repayment plan (IBR). DOE also said Koeut failed to reach his employment potential because of a lack of initiative.

But Judge Mann disagreed. "A medical school graduate who works as a parking attendant and dishwasher cannot be described as lazy," she observed. She approved of Koeut's decision not to sign up for an IBR, which he rejected "because he could not carry the burden of his student debt without harming his opportunities for advancement."

In the end, Judge Mann discharged almost all of Koeut's student debt, finding that his current income and expenses did not permit him to maintain a minimum standard of living--even without making loan payments.

The Koeut case may be a sign that the bankruptcy judges are weary of DOE's incessant demands to put distressed student-loan debtors into IBRs. And perhaps they have grown tired of DOE's insistence that every bankrupt debtor's financial distress is entirely the debtor's fault.

Indeed, one cannot read Judge Mann's opinion without concluding that Seth Koeut had done everything possible to improve his standard of living and had handled his massive student-loan debt in good faith. Let us hope for more bankruptcy court decisions like Koeut v. U.S. Department of Education.

References

Koeut v. U.S. Department of Education, 622 B.R. 72 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2020).

Attention Student Loan Debtors: The Department of Education may want a piece of your inheritance!

Jill Stevenson enrolled at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in 2002, but she never graduated. Although she completed 87 of the 90 credit hours she needed to get a law degree, she was academically dismissed because of her low GPA. Subsequently, Stevenson obtained work as a paralegal in New Mexico.

Stevenson borrowed $90,000 to fund her law studies. In 2006, she enrolled in an income-based repayment plan (IBRP), and she made regular payments under that plan for 14 years. Nevertheless, due to accruing interest, her loan balance grew to $116,000.

In 2019, Stevenson filed an adversary proceeding to discharge her student loans in bankruptcy. At the time of filing, her monthly payment under the IBRP was $259.

Educational Credit Management (ECMC) opposed Stevenson’s plea for bankruptcy relief. ECMC sent Stevenson a formal request for admission asking her to admit that she could make her IBRP monthly payments and still maintain a minimal standard of living.

 Initially, Stevenson admitted that she could maintain a minimal standard of living while making monthly payments of $259. She argued, however, that her loan balance was growing and she would face a substantial tax burden when her IBRP obligations ended 11 years in the future because the forgiven debt would be taxable to her as income.

She maintained this tax liability constituted an undue hardship in itself and entitled her to discharge her student debt in bankruptcy.

Later, Stevenson moved to revise her answer to ECMC’s request for admission to state that her expenses exceeded her income even if she was relieved of her student-loan debt.

ECMC asked Bankruptcy Judge David Thuma to dismiss Stevenson's case based on her admission that she could make her IBRP payments and still maintain a minimum standard of living. ECMC also objected to Stevenson’s attempt to amend her answer to its request for admission.

This is how Judge Thuma ruled. First, he said Stevenson was entitled to change her answer to ECMC’s request for admission. Second, he ruled that there was a factual dispute about whether Stevenson would suffer undue hardship if forced to repay her loans.

However, Judge Thuma ruled that Stevenson was not entitled to discharge her student loans in bankruptcy simply because she could face tax consequences when she completed her IBRP. “If  borrowers can pay some amount each month," Judge Thuma reasoned, "it would shortchange the government to discharge the debt before the end of the IBRP.”

Nevertheless, Judge Thuma added, the tax bill that Stevenson potentially faced in 11 years could be considered when determining whether it would be an undue burden to require Stevenson to repay her student loans.

Stevenson v. ECMC is significant for two reasons. First, the case demonstrates ECMC’s chief litigation strategy in student-loan bankruptcy cases.  ECMC almost always argues that it is never an undue hardship for a student borrower to make monthly payments under an IBRP.  In other words, from ECMC’s perspective, no one is entitled to discharge student loans in bankruptcy because income-based payments never constitute an undue hardship.

Second, and more disturbing, Judge Thuma took note of the fact that Stevenson’s elderly parents own valuable real estate—a strip mall. “If [Stevenson’s] financial situation changes (e.g., if she receives an inheritance), she might be able to repay her student loans."

Ms. Stevenson is 53 years old, and her parents are in their 80s. Unless her loans are discharged in Judge Thuma’s bankruptcy court, she will be required to make IBRP payments for 11 more years only to see her loan balance get larger.

Suppose Stevenson's parents die, and she receives an inheritance before paying off her student loans. In that case, Stevenson might find the Department of Education standing at her parents’ graveside (figuratively speaking), demanding to be paid. 

Does that seem fair to you? It does not seem fair to me.

References

Stevenson v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, Adv. No. 19-1085, 2020 WL 6122749 (Bankr. D.N.M. Oct. 16, 2020).

Thomas M. Cooley Law School

Jamie Mudd v. U.S. Department of Education: A Nebraska bankruptcy court discharges a grandmother's student loans

 Between 2006 and 2015, Jamie Mudd took out 41 student loans to attend Heald College, a for-profit institution, and San Joaquin Delta College, a public institution. In 2015, she rolled these loans into two consolidated federal loans, totally about $72,000. 

Mudd put her student loans into an income-based repayment plan (IBRP) that established her monthly payments at zero due to her low income.  Under this plan, she was obligated to certify her income on an annual basis. Evidently, she forgot to do this because the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) removed her from the IBRP and reset her monthly payments at almost $800 per month. 

Mudd was readmitted into an IBRP, but she again failed to certify her income, and DOE set her new monthly payment at $963.

According to Bankruptcy Judge Shon Hastings, Mudd never earned more than $13 an hour, and she often worked two jobs to make ends meet. She lived in a one-bedroom apartment and incurred regular expenses caring for a grandson with disabilities. She also suffered from significant health problems.

Ms. Mudd filed an adversary proceeding, hoping to discharge her student loans, but DOE objected. First, DOE said Mudd's financial circumstances would probably improve, enabling her to make modest payments in an IBRP.  Second, Mudd was a smoker, and DOE said she should save her cigarette money and use it to pay down her student loans. DOE also claimed that Mudd's expenses for her grandson's video streaming were unnecessary.  Indeed, DOE disapproved of any money Mudd spent on her grandson.

Fortunately, Bankruptcy Judge Shon Hastings was considerably more compassionate than DOE. In a decision issued last month, Judge Hastings discharged all of Mudd's student-loan debt.

In ruling in Mudd's favor, Judge Hastings applied the "totality of circumstances" test approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a summary of his reasoning:

Mudd has made a good faith effort to maximize her income. Mudd works approximately 53 hours per week at two jobs. . . . Overall, Mudd's expenses are necessary and reasonable and consistent with a minimal standard of living. . . . She has no savings, owns no assets of significant value (except her used car in which she holds no equity), lives in a one-bedroom apartment and obtains food and toiletries from local nonprofit organizations to make ends met. Her medical expenses are higher than budgeted, and she anticipates that her health care costs will continue to rise due to her high cholesterol and diabetes.  

In short, Judge Hastings concluded, Mudd did not have sufficient disposable income to pay on her student loans. Thus, the judge discharged all of this debt.

Judge Hastings specifically rejected DOE's suggestion that Mudd should not be credited for the expenses she incurred for her grandson. "[T]he Court finds it entirely inappropriate to find or suggest that Mudd should not care for her grandson or to weigh undue burden factors against her for doing so." 

Judge Hasting's ruling should not surprise us. Clearly, Jamie Mudd was in dire financial straits and entitled to discharge her student loans in bankruptcy.

What is shocking is the fact that DOE objected. Mudd v. U.S. Department of Education is just one more example of the federal government's heartlessness toward college-loan debtors, heartlessness that borders on viciousness

References

Mudd v. U.S. Department of Education, Adversary No. 19-04048, 2020 WL 7330054 (Bank. D. Neb. Dec. 9, 2020).

Mosley v. Educational Credit Management Corporation: "It's not personal. It's just business."

The U.S. Department of Education and Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC), DOE's ruthless sidekick, don't want anyone to get bankruptcy relief.  This has been DOE's policy for many years.

Let's take a look at Mosley v. Educational  Credit Management Corporation, decided by the Eleventh Circuit back in 2007. As we will see, Mosley was clearly entitled to discharge his student loans in bankruptcy under the undue hardship standard, but ECMC fought him all the way into the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Keldric Mosley attended Alcorn State University, an HBCU, from 1989 to 1994, but he never got a degree. While a student, he was enrolled in Army ROTC, and he injured his back and hip when he fell from a tank during summer ROTC exercises.

Mosley left Alcorn State in 1994 to help his mother, whose health was deteriorating. He lived with his mother from 1994 until 1999. He held numerous jobs during that time but was unable to keep any of them due to depression, heavy drinking, and physical limitations due to his ROTC injury. (p. 1323)

In 2000, Mosley's mother committed him to a state-supported mental health facility, where he was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. He sought treatment for his physical and mental disabilities from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which placed him on prescription medications. These medications left him groggy. The combination of medicines and his physical disabilities made it difficult for Mosley to find stable employment. (p. 1323)

As noted by the Eleventh Circuit, Mosley was homeless from 2000 until his adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court, and he lived off of food stamps and small disability checks. He had no car and frequently slept at his aunt's house. (p. 1323)

Mosley represented himself in his adversary proceeding and sought to get evidence of his medical disabilities before the bankruptcy court. ECMC showed up to oppose bankruptcy relief and objected to the admission of some of Mosley's medical evidence. 

Although Judge Mullins reluctantly declined to accept some of his medical evidence, he discharged Mosely's student loans without that evidence. Judge Mullins reasoned that Mosley's testimony was sufficient to show that "he was in a vicious cycle of illness and homelessness that prevented him from working" and that repaying his student loans would constitute an undue hardship. (p. 1324)

After a trial, Judge Mullins discharged Mosley's student loans in bankruptcy.  ECMC appealed, but U.S. District Court Judge Robert Vining affirmed Judge Mullins' decision.

ECMC then appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  It argued that Judge Mullins erred in admitting Mosley's own testimony about his health. ECMC also argued that Mosley's evidence did not support Judge Mullins' conclusion that Mosley's financial situation was unlikely to improve or his ruling that Mosely handled his student loans in good faith.

But the Eleventh Circuit rejected all of ECMC's arguments and affirmed Judge Mullins' decision to discharge Mosley's student loans.  The appellate court ruled that Judge Mullins properly considered Mosley's testimony about his medical health. The court cited the Sixth Circuit's decision in Barrett v. ECMC, in which that court ruled that requiring an indigent debtor to obtain expensive expert testimony or documentation "imposes an unnecessary and undue burden on the debtor in establishing his burden of proof." (p. 1325)

Regarding the good faith requirement, ECMC argued that Mosley had not managed his student loans in good faith because he had not made a payment on his loans since 1996 and had not enrolled in an income-based repayment plan. 

But the Eleventh Circuit rejected those arguments. 

 [F]ailure to make a payment, standing alone, does not establish a lack of good faith. Good faith is measured by the debtor's efforts to obtain employment, maximize income, and minimize expenses; his default should result, not from his choices, but from factors beyond his reasonable control. (p. 1327)

Nor is a debtor always obligated to sign up for an income-based repayment plan to establish good faith:

While a debtor's effort to negotiate a repayment plan certainly demonstrates good faith, courts have rejected a per se rule that a debtor cannot show good faith where he or she has not enrolled in the Income Contingent Repayment Program. (p. 1327).

In short, Keldric Mosley--who clearly met the undue hardship standard for discharging his student loans in bankruptcy--had to fight for that remedy all the way to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Although Mosley had a record of homelessness and chronic health problems, ECMC refused to allow him bankruptcy relief until three levels of federal judges ruled in his favor. 

It was not personal with ECMC. It was just business.

Congress needs to remove the "undue hardship" language from the Bankruptcy Code, and perhaps someday it will. 

But until that day comes, the U.S. Department of Education and ECMC could do a lot to ease the stress on overburdened student-loan debtors if they would merely allow people like Keldric Mosely to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy without having to battle their way into the federal appellate courts.  

References

Mosely v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 494 F.3d 1320 (1lth Cir. 2007).

"It's not personal. It's just business."

Mendenhall v. Navient: Idaho bankruptcy judge grants a family man a partial discharge of student loan debt totally more than $400,00.

Mendenhall v. Navient Corporation: A $76,000 student-loan debt grows fivefold

In 2007, Steven Mendenhall obtained a bachelor's degree in film and video production from Brooks Institute of Photography, a for-profit college in California, which later closed.  To finance his studies, Mendenhall took out about $75,000 in federal student loans and $76,000 in private loans from Sallie Mae.

Mendenhall's private student loans gradually spun out of control. By 2013--six years after graduating, Mr. Mendenhall's private student-loan debt had grown from $76,000 to  $260,357.69--more than three times what he borrowed.  By 2018, his private loan debt had grown to $407,912.84--more than five times what he borrowed.

How did that happen? To begin with, Sallie Mae's interest rate was quite high--13.625 percent. Interest on Mr. Mendenhall's unpaid debt accumulated and capitalized, causing his loan balance to spiral upward.  Also, Sallie Mae charged Mendenhall additional fees--nearly $40,000 in fees as of 2013. That's more than half the amount Mr. Mendenhall borrowed.

Added together then--Mr. Mendenhall's private student-loan debt and his federal debt totaled almost half a million dollars.

Mr. Mendenhall diligently sought employment and finally landed a pretty good job working at Brigham Young University's branch campus in Rexburg, Idaho. He attempted to manage his towering debt by filing for bankruptcy three times. Realizing he could not discharge his student loans absent a showing of undue hardship, Mendenhall filed for bankruptcy twice to discharge his other debts, hoping to free up more money to pay on his student loans. Still, he was unable to pay down his private student-loan debt.

Mendenhall filed his third bankruptcy petition in 2018, hoping to discharge his student loans. He settled with the U.S. Department of Education but still owed over $400,000 to Sallie Mae's successor in interest, Navient.

Judge Joseph Meier grants Mr. Mendenhall a partial discharge of his massive student debt

Idaho Bankruptcy Judge Joseph Meier reviewed Mr. Mendhall's financial situation and concluded that Mendenhall and his wife had lived frugally. The judge specifically approved of Mendenhall's expenditures for life insurance and his contributions to a retirement fund and a small savings account.

In fact, Judge Meier found only two unreasonable expenses--Mendenhall's $400 a month charitable contribution to the family church and his $300 monthly payments on his attorney fees.

After reviewing the totality of Mr. Mendenhall’s income and expenses, Judge Meier concluded that Mendenhall only had $150 a month in available income to pay on his student-loan bill---$407,000, which was accruing interest at the rate of 13.625 percent.

Judge Meier then analyzed Mendenhall’ situation under the three-pronged Brunner test to determine whether Mendenhall and his dependents would suffer an “undue hardship” if he were required to repay his private student-loan debt.

In the Judge’s view, Mendenhall met all three prongs of the Brunner test.  First, he was unable to repay his student loans and maintain a minimal standard of living. Second, his current financial situation was unlikely to change substantially.  And third, Mendenhall had handled his loans in good faith.

After completing his extensive analysis, Judge Meier then gave Stephen Mendenhall a partial discharge of his private student loans. The judge discharged all of this debt except $45,000--a little more than 10 percent of the total amount he owed. This debt could be paid without accruing interest, Judge Meier instructed, in payments of $150 a month over 25 years.

Sometimes a partial student-loan discharge is an appropriate remedy

Judge Meier made the right decision, one that other bankruptcy judges should follow. Granting a partial student-loan discharge gives a judge the flexibility to fashion a reasonable and just remedy for an honest but unfortunate debtor burdened by massive student-loan debt. Such a remedy is particularly appropriate for Mr. Mendhenhall, a husband and father with four children, burdened by student debt that had careened out of control due to a high interest rate and unconscionable fees.

References

Mendenhall v. Navient Corporation, JMM Adversary Case No. 19-8010-JMM, 2020 WL 6557964 (Bankr. D. Idaho Oct. 15, 2020).

Is massive student-loan forgiveness off the table? The insiders prefer long-term, income-based repayment plans and that's what student debtors are likely to get

Remember the heady days of the 2020 presidential primaries? Democratic nominees proposed massive student-loan forgiveness, and some promised a free college education. 

This is what Vice President Joe Biden promised last April:

The concept I’m announcing today will align my student debt relief proposal with my forward-looking college tuition proposal. Under this plan, I propose to forgive all undergraduate tuition-related federal student debt from two- and four-year public colleges and universities for debt-holders earning up to $125,000. . . . The federal government would pay the monthly payment in lieu of the borrower until the forgivable portion of the loan was paid off. This benefit would also apply to individuals holding federal student loans for tuition from private HBCUs and MSIs.

But the election is over, and the political insiders have had time to reflect on massive loan forgiveness. As the Washington Post editorialized just a few days ago,

[W]wholesale debt relief is actually the antithesis of progressive policy. Most benefits would flow to upper-income households, which, despite the undeniable burden of debt for lower-income families, actually owes a disproportionate share of the total [student-loan] dollars. 

 The Post disapproves of the relief plan put forward by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Charles Schumer.  They want Biden to forgive student-loan debt up to $50,000 per borrower.  Biden himself has trimmed back his April proposal and now only wants Congress to forgive $10,000 in student debt.

I think massive student-loan relief is off the table. Instead, I think the Department of Education--acting with or without Congressional action--is more likely to offer more generous income-based repayment plans.

In fact, that is exactly what the Washington Post is endorsing. Citing a study by Sylvain  Catherine and Constantine Yanellis, the Post says the feds should "mak[e] sure that everyone who qualifies enrolls in an existing plan that links repayment to a borrower's income."

But tinkering with income-based repayment plans (IBRPs) will not solve the student-loan crisis. 

Nine million people are in them now, and virtually none of them are paying down the principal on their loans.  College borrowers who stick it out will eventually get their student loans forgiven, but the canceled debt is considered taxable income by the Internal Revenue Service.

Making IBRPs more generous, which the new administration might do, is just a student-loan forgiveness program in disguise.  It would do nothing to change the status quo, allowing students to borrow too much money to attend college and the universities to charge tuition that is far too high.

As Steve Rhode argued in a recent essay, the solution to the student-loan crisis is to ease restrictions on bankruptcy relief for distressed college-loan borrowers.  All that needs to be done is to remove the "undue hardship" language from the Bankruptcy Code and allow student-loan debtors who are truly insolvent to discharge their loans in bankruptcy.

But perhaps that solution is too simple for the crafty minds of our politicians and our college leaders.  Instead of giving student borrowers a fresh start in bankruptcy,  they will likely concoct another complicated and labyrinthine IBRP.

Steve Rhode: Here is Why Forgiving Student Loans is an Impossible Issue with an Easy Solution

Written by Steve Rhode

 Originally published at Get Out of Debt Guy

When it comes to a rapidly accelerating financial burden on American families, there is no greater concern than student loans.

The debt is burdensome and unfair on many levels that I’ll explore below.

However, there is a straightforward and simple solution for dealing with all of this outside of struggling to develop a fair forgiveness strategy. I’ll talk about that after we look at common opinions on the subject.

Is Student Loan Forgiveness Fair?

The talk of forgiveness is a difficult topic because how do you reach any level of fairness.

And let me be clear when people talk about forgiving student loans, it only applies to federal student loans. Not private student loans.

As Howard Dvorkin, Chairman of Debt.com said, “Only one-third of the people in this country get a four-year college education. The two-thirds without a college education is expected to subsidize their education when it is very likely that they earn less than the people who are receiving the educational subsidy.”

Dvorkin went on to say, “The issue of forgiving debt is complicated. What about all the people that have already struggled to pay their debts, and now other people get loans forgiven. That’s not fair.”

Student Loans – Another Financial Mistake for Many

A 2019 student by New York Life of 2,200 adults found the average participant reported taking 18.5 years to pay off their student loans, starting at age 26 and ending at 45.

That is a significant portion of life to have to be tied to a student loan payment that should have been directed to saving for retirement and then mushroomed into a giant nest egg. It can take decades to recover from that financial mistake. But that’s not the only financial regret people have.

What is shocking is the number of people that have student loan debt but who never graduated. I’ve seen statics as high as 75 percent of people with any student loans never obtained the degree.

And the wave of for-profit schools that have oversold education to people that never should have purchased their product is another national disaster.

“For-profit schools are not worth the money,” said Dvorkin. “As an employer, I hire people with traditional non-profit college degrees before I would hire someone with a for-profit degree.”

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York said, “Students who attend for-profit institutions take on more educational debt and are more likely to default on their student loans than those attending similarly selective public schools.”

The study went on to say, “Overall, our results indicate that, on average, for-profit enrollment leads to worse student loan outcomes for students than enrolling in a public college or university, which is driven by higher loan takeup and worse labor market outcomes. This is an important set of findings for several reasons. First, a substantial amount of public funds go to for-profit institutions through the financial aid system. Our estimates indicate the return to such expenditures may be quite low. Second, the results suggest that students who attend local for-profit institutions when there is a negative labor demand shock may be making mistakes: they would be better off attending the local public college or university instead.”

But even non-profit schools are ramping up tuition and selling students into seats that maybe should not have been admitted.

Student loan debt is a life sentence in painful debt for many: The Impossibility of Forgiveness

Opinions on forgiveness range all over the place. Betsy DeVos, the current Secretary of Education said recently, “Policies should never entice students into greater debt. Nor should they put taxpayer dollars at greater risk. There are too many politicians today who support policy that does both.”

 

She also labeled student loan forgiveness as an “insidious notion of government gift giving. We’ve heard shrill calls to “cancel,” to “forgive,” to “make it all free.” Any innocuous label out there can’t obfuscate what it really is: wrong.”

Forgiveness is never going to be fair, and it’s not going to a quick and effective way to stimulate the economy in a difficult time from a pandemic, as some claim.

Today, student loan forgiveness would result in people not making loans they are already in default on or making payments that are too low to pay the debt off. At most, it will result in people not having to make some loan payments monthly.

The economic impact will be felt over a long period of time rather than the boost and support the economy needs now.

While DeVos talks about avoiding policies that entice students into greater debt, her own Department of Education is a big part of the problem, with help from Congress.

As the federal student loan program stands now, there is $1.37 trillion of outstanding debt to students, and the Education Department has determined that borrowers will only pay back $935 billion. That leaves the program in the red and holding for $435 billion of bad loans.

The Wall Street Journal said, “The analysis was based on government accounting standards and didn’t include roughly $150 billion in loans originated by private lenders and backed by the government.”

 

To deal with that shortage, “Congress will have to raise taxes, cut services or increase the deficit to cover the losses.” That solution is also not fair to the many that repaid their loans.

So the Battles and Arguments About Student Loan Forgiveness Are Complicated

We can argue and politically position ourselves around the idea of forgiving student loans is either the best thing or the worst thing ever to happen.

It is actually a moot point since the program is in so much trouble already.

Let’s not forget the 42 million student loan borrowers will become due again in January 2020, as a result of the CARES Act forbearance ending.

People that can’t afford their student loans will suddenly be required to begin payments again. Defaults will explode even more.

As it stands now, the Department of Education’s base position is students should feel lucky they can enroll student loan debt in an Income-Driven Repayment program (IDR) that will give them a loan payment based on income. But, as I wrote before, it’s a trap.

As it stands now, while a student loan debtor might enroll in an income-based repayment program, the minimum payment is not enough to cover the interest being charged on the loan, and the balance owed grows. While people say, “certainly Congress will change that.” The reality is they have not, over the many years the programs have been in place.

So the way the “lowest payment” solution works right now is that the government lets you pay less than is due, that grows the balance, and in two decades, when the exploded balance is forgiven, people will owe income tax on that debt unless they are insolvent. It sounds crazy, but it is true.

Here is a case that is a great example of the madness. The student loan debtor could not afford to pay off her $40,000 of student loans over 14 years but is now required to enroll and remain in an IDR that will drive her balance up.

The article by Richard Fossey J.D. says, “How could the judge conclude that Hladly might someday pay off her student loans when the amount she initially borrowed had tripled since the time she graduated from law school? If Hlady could not pay off $40,000 in student loans over 14 years, how will she ever pay $140,000 over the next 25 years, especially since her loan balance grows by $20 a day in accruing interest?

As Judge Scarcella observed, Ms. Hlady is 48 years old. Her 25-year repayment plan will terminate when she is 73. By that time, her loan balance will be more than a quarter of a million dollars. This amount will be forgiven, but the forgiven debt will be taxed as income unless Hlady is insolvent at the time.”

With IDR Plans, the Government Has Already Accepted the Loan Forgiveness Proposition

In my opinion, with federal student loan forgiveness programs already on the books, policymakers have already accepted some form of loan forgiveness. Yet, the current talk of student loan forgiveness ranges from its “socialism” to its “a right.”

As it stands today, the federal government already runs a student loan program that is rapidly increasing in delinquencies, defaults, and repayment plans that will only grow the balance.

The only current winners in the student loan cycle are the schools that can sell students on attending and get easy money from the federal government.

Students enroll, schools get paid and accept almost no responsibility for the outcome. When a student loan debtor was sold education, they could never logically or mathematically afford and later defaults; the school does not have to pay back the loan.

Howard Dvorkin said, “Colleges must start operating as a business and deliver service within income. The days of college expansion paid for from easy government student loan money needs to stop.”

He’s right.

Student Loan Forgiveness is Much-Ado-About-Nothing and Misdirected

I hate to state the obvious here, but rather than worry about the inequities of forgiveness and who wins and loses, the most rational and logical option is to roll back the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA).

BAPCPA made private student loans harder to discharge in bankruptcy. And private student loans are growing as well.

The issue is students are drowning in debt. It can be argued that because of student loan debt, they are also having to take out other debt and reduce retirement savings.

When those people are old enough and can no longer work, the lack of retirement savings will create a public safety net drain. No matter how you look at this, the systemic problem of easy money for education has driven up the debt, and we will all pay for it in one way or another.

The Solution Seems So Apparent

Up until 1976, all student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a legal right for consumers to get a fresh financial start, and it is even a part of the U.S. Constitution. Those that file for bankruptcy generate an immediate stimulus for the economy and have a second chance to do better, having learned hard lessons from mistakes.

Returning to allowing both federal and private student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy has many features:

1.      It is a current and accepted legal process with clear rules and guidelines.

2.      The debt is forgiven tax-free.

3.      It allows people a chance to get a fresh start from an impossible situation. Oftentimes these issues are the result of accidents, injuries, medical issues, pandemics, etc.

4.      A bankruptcy Trustee and Judge must review and approve the discharge plan. If a consumer has too much income for a full immediate discharge, they will be required to enter a five-year repayment plan in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

5.      Forgiveness will be restricted to only those that qualify.

6.      The fact the loans may now be dischargeable should force lenders to make better loan decisions before just handing the money to anybody.

7.      If loans are less abundant or actually just based on repayment ability, then schools would have to ratchet back tuition fees. Less easy money would be available.

8.      This process would be restricted to those who need and meet the accepted legal standards for bankruptcy.

9.      People that can afford to repay their loans will have to do so through their Chapter 13 repayment plan.

10.  We can eliminate this ridiculous game and administration of student loans that will never be repaid and have to be dealt with.

If We Restore Bankruptcy Student Loan Debt Elimination to All Then We Can Focus on Doing Better

There is no argument that education leads to opportunity. I don’t care if that is education at a trade school, some other hands-on education, or a degree in some college subject at the best school in a 200-mile radius.

I heard recently about a “toilet paper” degree program. That’s where plumbers make much more than people to go to college. I do know some very rich electricians and plumbers. I guess that’s a raw subject for me since I’ve spent $3,000 in plumbing bills in the last 30 days.

We have a wonderful system in place to allow people to have affordable access to start their education. The local community college is a fantastic place to start.

It is affordable, and as Dvorkin said, “When thinking of how to get started on the journey of education, community college is a great investment. Think about this: why pay much higher tuition to take classes that use the same books as the community college class uses. Start affordably and then transfer to a more expensive school if you want to continue to finish your college degree.”

The power of community colleges is not new. It is proven. My very own father started his education from a farm in Michigan at the local community college. He then went on to become the very first Ph.D. graduate in Political Science at Michigan State.

So let’s all stop trying to reinvent the wheel here. Just restore the bankruptcy provision for all student loans and require some commonsense and responsibility on future lending.

There will never be any universally accepted plan for past forgiveness of student loans that were flawed from the start.

We are a great country and instead of looking back, let’s do better moving forward.