Second Circuit Holds Certain Private Student Loans May Be Dischargeable Under Section 523 (a) (8) (A) (ii) | Jones Day
On July 15, 2021, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was held at Homaidan v. Sallie Mae, Inc., et al. that the private student loans in question were not subject to the exemption from discharge provided for in section 523 (a) (8) (A) (ii) of the Bankruptcy Code for “obligation[s] to repay funds received as an educational benefit. In the bankruptcy court case below, the defendant Lender and Manager (hereinafter, “Lender”) sought the dismissal of an adversarial proceeding brought by a debtor in Chapter 7 bankruptcy alleging that the lender had violated a bankruptcy discharge order by accepting repayment of private student loans that were in fact discharged because they covered more than eligible educational expenses. The defendant argued that the loans were exempt from discharge.[s] to repay funds received as an educational benefit “under section 523 (a) (8) (A) (ii) of the Bankruptcy Code and found that it” does not wipe out all debts related to the education, “including the student loans at issue. He therefore dismissed the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Second Circuit allowed the interlocutory appeal and upheld.
The decision of the second circuit
Like the bankruptcy court, the Second Circuit relied heavily on the plain language of the relevant legislation, which exempts from discharge, inter alia, “the obligation[s] to reimburse funds received as an education allowance, scholarship or allowance. “Decision at 9; see also 11 USC § 523 (a) (8) (A) (ii). The only argument of the defendant lender in its motion to dismiss was that the private student loan granted to the plaintiff was an “educational benefit” under section 523 (a) (8) (A) (ii). However, the Respondent reserved the right to respond to the Applicant’s allegations that the loans were not “qualifying student loans.[s]”under Section 523 (a) (8) (B) at a later point in the litigation.
The Second Circuit concluded that Section 523 (a) (8) (A) (ii) cannot be interpreted to include “loans” when that specific word was used in related provisions and specifically absent from the sub- applicable part. The court also noted that it could not adopt the defendant’s broad interpretation of the provision – “under which any loan is non-dischargeable under section 523 (a) (8) (A) (ii ) if it was used for further education -[as it] would draw virtually all student loans under the exemption. This, according to the court, would unduly render the exemptions in sections 523 (a) (8) (A) (i) and 523 (a) (8) (B) meaningless. limited by the court to align with the terms “scholarship” and “allowance” also specified in section 523 (a) (8) (A) (ii). Because the appeal arose out of a decision on a motion to dismiss, the court did not rule on the actual release of the applicant’s loan in connection with his bankruptcy and referred the case back to the bankruptcy court. for further processing.
Impact on future litigation
The Second Circuit decision does not completely clarify the rules surrounding the release of student loans. Indeed, the court did not consider whether the private student loans in question were “eligible student loans”.[s]”and therefore not subject to discharge under Section 523 (a) (8) (B). In addition, the decision does not at all involve public student loans, which are exempt from discharge in the absence of conclusions that the payment of the debt would cause the debtor “hardship.” In Thelma G. McCoy v. United States, a plaintiff recently requested a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split regarding the appropriate test to assess “undue hardship.” However, in June 2021, the court dismissed the petition, leaving the divided circuit intact and opening the door to pursuing inconsistent decisions.