Case ID: f-appx_605/html/0660-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Eric NICHOLS and Bonita M. Nichols, Debtors, Eric Nichols; Bonita M. Nichols, Appellants, v. Align Western States Learning Corporation, Appellee.
    No. 13-60093.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 22, 2015.
    Bonita M. Nichols, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
    Steven M. Cox, Esquire, Waterfall, Eco-nomids, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C., Tucson, AZ, for Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eric Nichols and Bonita M. Nichols appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the Nichols’ adversary proceeding seeking to discharge Eric’s student loans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. We independently review the bankruptcy court decision, reviewing the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the code de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Mason (In re Mason), 464 F.3d 878, 881 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly dismissed the Nichols’ adversary proceeding because they failed to make a prima facie showing that excepting the debt from discharge would constitute an undue hardship. Rifino v. United States (In re Rifino), 245 F.3d 1083, 1087-88 (9th Cir.2001) (debtor has burden of proof on undue hardship, and must satisfy all three elements of the Brunner test before a discharge can be granted).

We reject the Nichols’ contentions that the bankruptcy judge was biased, violated due process, and erred in announcing its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record following the close of the hearing.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.