Federal Student Loan Law

[sendithard]

My question involves bankruptcy in the state of: GA

I read over and over that federal student loan debt typically cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. I am only asking if someone can direct me to the Specific laws related to this. I cannot find the laws online that detail this. I would just like to read the laws that are in effect. Thank you and much appreciated.

[cbg]

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=are+federal+st...+in+bankruptcy

[sendithard]

I'm looking for specific laws fella, if you don't know the specific laws and cannot supply an answer why would you even respond, lol?

[RJR]

11 USC 523; see 8

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/523

[sendithard]

RJR,

Thank you very much for the reply, that was exactly what I was looking for I believe.

[RJR]

RJR,

Thank you very much for the reply, that was exactly what I was looking for I believe.

Welcome! As you can read, to be granted a discharge on student loans you would have to prove a hardship
to the satisfaction of the court.

[jumanji]

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=are+federal+st...+in+bankruptcy

Yeah, fella! How dare you try to teach a man to fish!

[cbg]

I figure the OP knows how to use Google as well as I do.

[Taxing Matters]

The statute does not define what constitutes an "undue hardship". The federal courts of appeals have adopted two different tests for that. The 11th Circuit adopted the Second Circuit's test in Brunner. This the test that most circuits use. Specifically, the 11th Circuit court stated:

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.”

The Brunner 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.

In re Cox, 338 F.3d 1238, 1241 (11th Cir. 2003).

As you can see from the test that is set out at the end of what I quoted from the court's opinion, the Georgia debtor seeking to discharge a student loan must prove that ALL three of the elements of the test are met, making it very challenging to succeed in getting a student loan discharged.

[adjusterjack]

It's interesting to note that Brunner did not get her student loans discharged. The court found that "Brunner has not established her eligibility for a discharge of her student loans based on "undue hardship." The record demonstrates no "additional circumstances" indicating a likelihood that her current inability to find any work will extend for a significant portion of the loan repayment period. She is not disabled, nor elderly, and she has — so far as the record discloses — no dependents. No evidence was presented indicating a total foreclosure of job prospects in her area of training. In fact, at the time of the hearing, only ten months had elapsed since Brunner's graduation from her Master's program. Finally, as noted by the district court, Brunner filed for the discharge within a month of the date the first payment of her loans came due. Moreover, she did so without first requesting a deferment of payment, a less drastic remedy available to those unable to pay because of prolonged unemployment. Such conduct does not evidence a good faith attempt to repay her student loans."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...27,328,329,330

In re Mosley (too much to quote), on the other hand, is an example of the extreme conditions one may experience in order to qualify for student loan discharge under the "undue hardship" test.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...27,328,329,330