prove insurmountable barriers true payment of the student loan debt or can be discharged this echoes what the burner court and other circuits have said and they said there must be a certainty of hopelessness and whether you use the term insurmountable barriers or certainty of hopelessness the point is clear the debtor must prove there is a lack of possibility of repayment of the student loan before it can be discharged now some court what happened here your honor i think it's clear from the opinion that the court compared the man to go only standard of living to an average standard of living and shifted the burden to the creditor to prove the certainty of payment in the future and i think that error occurs because of i fundamentally misunderstanding of the student loan throws around and more importantly a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the action itself first student loan student loans or a social program the purpose of the program is to provide access to two individuals who otherwise would be unable to act the education of their choosing student loans are given without normal market considerations and terms that are flying that a all quite familiar with student loans one of the really important things about student loans or honor is that because of the nature of them as do the math of a quid pro quo it's that students cannot discharge loans and all but the most exceptional circumstances where they cannot prove the probability of repayment and what are we supposed to do i mean you have a bankruptcy court who went through this pretty carefully so you're asking us to do what i'm asking this court to reverse this charge ability of the loans and i think the reason for that substitute our judgment as to the feasibility of what you argued for and with there you argued for not the steps that your  give pick out your example of where things went astray i was having trouble if you look at the that's the we're talking about the commute time and i'm trying to do the numbers on it and trying to figure out how i would have come out differently doesn't your honor i mean i would disagree with that assertion i think that it's clear from the language in itself it's a minimal standard of living and that if you look at the adoption a look at the problems and how the courts can apply how that has been applied in this circuit and every other circuit announcers but really what this case is about and i think what nice discusses is that the debtor bears the burden of proving insurmountable barriers to repayment fault i mean it's hard to get at this i think the same question in a different way and part of what frustrates me here is that i might well take issue with conclusions reached by the bankruptcy court but i don't know that i have anything to point to to say that well that you really could've saved money by living closer to your job and there are places to live in the i mean i don't know the greater los angeles area so these points of reference are particularly fair to maybe you can figure out well gee this is relatively more expensive than this area and that's closer and so but what was there put before the bankruptcy judge  ferment the bankruptcy judge to draw those conclusions if you chose to well and i think you keep arguing the burden is on the petitioner on the on the bankruptcy the debtor that's true but only to a certain point and in this case the bankruptcy court concluded in the district court  that point had been reached and so i looked in here was done over review were resitting in the seat of the district judge but basically looking at a factual determination by the bankruptcy court and what is there in the record that would permit me to say you know if they didn't live here they live there you could save a substantial amount of money is there anything at all in the record that if you look at the record what you find is this is a family that is only going to increase its income in its in the future and along in a decrease of expenses defend did your client present any evidence at all the burden is not i didn't ask that question i've heard from you where the norden is and isn't that a problem if the burden may be on the debtor but if if the objecting party chooses just to get nothing well then the only question the court can look at is is this stacked high enough not that there's anything to believe that i mean i could speculate there are places they could live that are cheaper but if there's nothing in i think the record belies that just right and i look at the court found that he's living above the iris guidelines for their family every which is an average standard of living so that's not to christians question he said maybe there's an area you could move to that would cause them half spends on certain areas of expenses and i think the important thing the court must look at when they're looking at these issues is understand the fundamental nature of the action and that this is a discharge ability action it's an extraordinary request it's a request eighteen those are gone forever there is a debt that still remains the payments the come due after that point they are still in place and need to be okayed by the debtor is not correct and i don't know i don't but the case you've got in front of us has a judgement that you're not aware of and evidence that just doesn't measure up at all defend it doesn't or our credit doesn't submit any evidence and so it's really kind of hard to say to the bankruptcy court well you know this stack isn't quite high enough  discharge of mr man to go in these loans he's not going to be forced to involuntarily make a payment tomorrow that you can't afford rather if he doesn't make a voluntary payment at some point in time the loans will be assigned to him guaranteeing agency  be required to administratively garnish his wages and if that's fifteen percent of the disposable pay imposes a financial hardship on him and you can request a hearing and ask for that to be reduced and significant hearing officer will judge his request based on an average standard of living it will use the i r s collection guidelines so when it comes to pain that congress is entirely consistent with regard to repayment of debts the i r s regarding tax that's of course use the ira's collection guidelines the bankruptcy courts used when designing the disposal income test the i r s collection guidelines and when it comes to repayment of student loans hearing officers use the i arrest collection guidelines and it's appropriate to use a standard average stand of living when it comes to repayment in that context what's inappropriate is a bankruptcy court imposing barriers there's nothing that would stop mr manning only from getting a better job there's nothing that's going to stop him from getting raises every in fact he's going to get raises every year there's nothing there is no insurmountable barrier to the wife getting a job there is no that the same case when it applies to however there may rebut the presumption with additional circumstances indicating that her income cannot reasonably be expected to increase and th foot house for a husband and wife and two kids they're not going to have nine hundred dollars a month in car payments but also families of the judgment speak to that by treating the payments that come due after the children are no longer children treating those residing in a twenty two hundred something square foot home in valencia but the anger feud evidence at trial is that this house was available to the debtors because it was at a reduced rental because the house was in significant disrepair there was one bathroom that was not functioning at all there were sparks coming out of the electrical outlets they converted one of the extra rooms a non bedroom into a bedroom there was testimony at trial that the debtors looked at apartments to see if the ground would be lower for apartments but interestingly enough the apartments were more expensive than this home which was at the bottom of the market in that area and again there was no other evidence of looking in a different area there was no evidence of looking in another area there are should they be expected to look at another area site to various jack in the box locations he had a company car so he really did not have to venture to the went to park home office at some point time his position did change requiring him to go to the way to park office and then he no longer had the use of a company car which is why the debtor's car payments are so significant they were driving an expedition because they have four children the fifteen year old at the time of trial who was six foot one way two hundred forty pounds and they needed a car that mrs van again we think used to shuttle all that aside from the fact that the creditor didn't give us much to work with except for a roof you were you're you're coming up with but a lot of the seems transitory first of all you just said he has circumstances changed because and other weathers getting a new one or a used one so the problem i have is that he's not an employer and he's maybe underemployed but he is getting bonuses he is getting  discharge let it run until the age of his oldest or his youngest son how long is that in to the future basically an eight year window and has anybody done the math of how much of this loan will still be outstanding at that time yes i believe the trial court did and i estimated that based on the judge thompson's calculations the ford and the explorer was not new and it was one of the only vehicles that could accommodate the four children fastnesses man is going to transport them to school i don't know what happens i wouldn't even imagine to speculate could he win the lottery tomorrow for most of it and that's not the same analogy we're talking about the history of his employer having transferred the test of a management position heard about this case is that the income of this family isn't the poverty level or anything close to that and that the basic attack being made by the creditor is that the court took average standard and creditor elected not to try to put in any evidence and that gives the court the bankruptcy court or for that matter us a standard of comparison for just the basic numbers seem kind of large to say that well this is this is minimal because it seems to me there are an awful lot of people los angeles area that get by an income less than that and we expect them to do now that the creditor is posing that as as a test of of the burden that is that is the burden of the debtor to demonstrate and through hardship as against this minimal standard of living the district court bankers according to court included that you have met that challenge but i think the broad question is take a step back is this really  standard of living that's been proved i believe the question your honor is not whether or not the debtors are living a minimal standard of living at the present the question is whether or not if required to pay the pay the student loan with they still be able to maintain a minimal standard of living for themselves even to put the courts analysis appears to define what they're at now doesn't try to make any significant change in their living conditions for example why not require them to move to a smaller place the court appears to have accepted this as a definition of minimal by not considering the possibility of living in a different area the court appears to have accepted this is a as demonstration of minimal now in the eye you could say as i suggested to creditors council that never creditor gets sick of evidence in error and speaks to the issue but the the challenge being put by the creditor is is the burden of proof one if if your client has a burden of proof to demonstrate it would be undue hardship have you done that really by saying we can't make ends meet living the way we live now because i don't see any evidence from your client that says that really shows contemplating major changes in particular there's nothing at all that speaks to living in a different area that the given appears to be we're living in the legacy of is that enough under the burden of proof and the obligation that's put on your client to show that it would be under hardship i think that or it is your honor because although they do live in valencia and they did not look for housing outside of  are living in a substandard house and it within valencia is there anything whatsoever in the record either way that speaks to what they're paying us compared what other people in the los angeles metropolitan area pay for housing you know your honor there isn't but i think what's important to also recall is that the debtors are functioning at a deficit currently with the assistance from the very same premises they're operating a deficit where they live now paying the rent they pay now but we have zero information about what other rents might be available to them yes i don't have any information on other areas ok so i can fault the creditor for not having submitted something to challenge that but let me go back to the issue that the creditor raises which is the burden of proof is explicitly put on your client to demonstrate a behind our ship and if there is zero evidence with regard to what other areas are what rentals might be available in other areas that he surely has to drive by to get to his job can we fairly say he's carried the necessary burden i think you can in considering all of the circumstances because although the rent is i believe it was twenty one fifty living in this general area i can imagine how much less a rental property would be that would house six a family of six needs to live in a two bedroom apartment where children of the same gender share a bedroom i think that in the pendle pendulum has swung too far to the right the debtor's have indicated that their the housing are at the minimum levels and if they're below the national standards for food and clothing their budget does not even provide any expense for retirement for medical visits over and above one co payment per month there's no life insurance i think if you look at the entire picture at their budget how they've knocked on my eyes the income and minimize expenses i think they have met their burden under each pronk they are a fault for not