Trinity High Sch., Inc. v. Sanderfer (In re Sanderfer)
- Summarized by David Treacy , U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Kentucky
- 7 months 2 weeks ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
- Citation:
- No. 23-8023 (6th Circuit, May 24,2024) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit held a bankruptcy court erred in granting summary judgment to a debtor/appellee on a creditor/appellant's claim to except a debt from her discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Under Sixth Circuit authority, an extension of credit does not need to be in writing to constitute a loan for purposes of § 523(a)(8). The order on appeal did not sufficiently explain why the bankruptcy court "held that a written agreement, as opposed to an agreement evidencing the parties’ intent, is required as a matter of law[,]" preventing meaningful review.
- Procedural context:
- Creditor/appellant asked the BAP to review the order granting a summary judgment in Debtor's favor on non-dischargeability and denying Creditor's motion for summary judgment. Ordinarily, an order denying a summary judgment is considered interlocutory and non-appealable but "where 'the appeal from a denial of summary judgment is presented together with an appeal from a grant of summary judgment,' the appellate court has 'jurisdiction to review the appropriateness of the . . . denial.'"
- Facts:
- Debtor DesDemona Sanderfer's minor daughter was a high school student. After Debtor filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Creditor Trinity High School, Inc. filed a complaint asking the court to hold that tuition Debtor owed to Creditor for her daughter's education should be excepted from Debtor's discharge under § 523(a)(8). Creditor contended an agreement was reached prepetition that Debtor would make tuition payments to Creditor of $500 per month until Debtor satisfied the debt (owed for two years of schooling). To support its motion for summary judgment, Creditor tendered affidavits from two school administrators, along with two billing statements, to establish that the parties had reached an agreement. Debtor also moved for a summary judgment, contending in an accompanying affidavit that, while Debtor "agreed to 'a payment plan' with" Creditor, the parties had not reached any final agreement on specific terms, and Debtor only promised to make payments to Creditor when she could. The bankruptcy court granted Debtor's motion for summary judgment because "there is no signed loan agreement between the parties regarding repayment of the tuition" and "contrary to [Creditor]’s assertion, the form of the loan does matter." The court denied Creditor's motion for summary judgment and held the debt owed to Creditor was subject to Debtor's discharge. Creditor timely appealed.
- Judge(s):
- BAUKNIGHT, GREGG, and STOUT
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!
