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

Summarized by William Wallo , Bakke Norman, S.C.
11 years 4 months ago

Citation:

Nielsen v. ACS, Inc (In re Nielsen), Case No. 13-6034 (8th Cir. BAP October 27, 2014)

Tag(s):

Ruling:

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's determination that the debtor's student loans were not dischargeable.

Procedural context:

Debtor filed bankruptcy and sought determination that her student loan obligations were dischargeable as an "undue hardship." The bankruptcy court dismissed her complaint, finding that she did not meet the applicable standards for discharge. On appeal, the BAP affirmed, finding that the debtor did not meet her burden to demonstrate that repayment of the loans would constitute an undue hardship.

Facts:

At the time of the trial in her adversary proceeding, the debtor was approximately 36 years old. She received an associates degree in biology and two additional degrees, a B.S. in Health Services Administration and an MBA. She did not complete a master's degree in public Administration due to complications with a pregnancy. In total, she received 23 student loans during the years 1996-2005. Both she and her husband filed adversary proceedings to discharge student loan debt. The bankruptcy court considered all facts before it and denied the request for a discharge. On appeal, the debtor argued that she had satisfied the "totality of the circumstances" through evidence of allergies and mold exposure and an inability to relocate due to the special modifications made to her current home, her over-qualification for many jobs, her decision to home school her children, and additional issues. She also alleged that the bankruptcy court improperly considered her refusal to participate in an income contingent repayment plan given the potential tax consequences upon the completion of such a plan. The BAP found that the bankruptcy court comprehensively reviewed the evidence regarding mold exposure, the family's financial resources, and the ICRP as factors in assessing the totality of the circumstances. Affirmed.

Judge(s):

Federman, Schermer, and Saladino

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!