Although § 523(a)(8) clearly requires a showing of “undue hardship,” for discharge of student loan indebtedness in bankruptcy proceedings, the code neglects to define the term. As a result, “[b]ankruptcy courts use a wide variety of tests to determine whether the debtor has demonstrated undue hardship. While these tests have received varying degrees of acceptance, no particular test authoritatively guides or governs the undue hardship determination.” In re: Faish,
72 F.3d 298, 302 (3d Cir.1995) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). This court has yet to address the appropriate factors to be considered in determining when a debtor has shown “undue hardship.” Several of our sister circuits have addressed this issue, however, and adopted the test set forth by the Second Circuit in Brunner
. See In re Ekenasi,
325 F.3d 541, 546–50 (4th Cir.2003); In re Brightful,
267 F.3d 324, 327–28 (3d Cir.2001); In re Rifino,
245 F.3d 1083, 1087–88 (9th Cir.2001); In re Roberson,
999 F.2d 1132, 1135–37 (7th Cir.1993). But see In re Long,
322 F.3d 549, 553 (8th Cir.2003) (applying “the totality-of-the-circumstances test”); In re Hornsby,
144 F.3d 433, 437 (6th Cir.1998) (“[d]eclining to adopt any one test”). As we find the reasoning of the majority of our sister circuits persuasive, we now hold that the Brunner test is the appropriate test for determining “undue hardship.”
court adopted the following three-part test for the “undue hardship” exception to § 523(a)(8):
[to establish “undue hardship,” the debtor must show] (1) that the debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a “minimal” standard of living for herself and her dependents if forced to repay the loans; (2) that additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans; and (3) that the debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans.
831 F.2d at 396.