Nielsen v. ACS, Inc. (In re Nielsen)

Summarized by Brendan Gage , Goulston & Storrs PC
12 years 10 months ago

Citation:

No. 12-2925 (8th Cir. Apr. 25, 2013) (per curiam)

Tag(s):

Ruling:

Affirming the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (the “BAP”), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the bankruptcy court (the “BC”) did not clearly err in finding that the debtor failed to establish that his student loan debt was dischargeable based on undue hardship under § 523(a)(8). The BC did not clearly err in finding that the debtor’s allergies did not restrict his ability to work nor did the BC err in considering the debtor’s eligibility for the Income Contingency Repayment Progrm as a factor in its undue hardship analysis. Furthermore, the BC did not violate his due process rights by failing to forward the parties’ bankruptcy trial exhibits to the BAP because, as the appellant, it was the debtor’s responsibility to designate the record on appeal under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006.

Procedural context:

The BC denied the debtor’s request to discharge his student loan debt under the “undue hardship” provision of § 523(a)(8). The debtor appealed to the BAP and also moved to correct the record to include the parties’ bankruptcy trial exhibits. The BAP affirmed the BC and the debtor appealed. On appeal the Eighth Circuit exercised its discretion to enlarge the record to include the debtor’s trial exhibits.

Facts:

The debtor claimed that his student loan debt was dischargeable.

Judge(s):

Loken, Melloy, and Benton, Circuit Judges.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!