Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akb-3_07-ap-90010/USCOURTS-akb-3_07-ap-90010-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gwen Anagick-Walters
Plaintiff
ACPE
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 1 of 2

JUDGE HERB ROSS (Recalled)

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

605 West 4th Avenue, Room 138, Anchorage, AK 99501-2296 - (Website: www.akb.uscourts.gov) Clerk’s Office 907-271-2655 (1-800-859-8059 In-State) - Judge’s Fax 907-271-2692

Case No. 3-87-00566-HAR

In re GWEN M. ANAGICK,

Debtor(s)

In Chapter 7

GWEN ANAGICK-WALTERS,

Plaintiff(s)

 v.

ALASKA COMMISSION ON

POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION,

Defendant(s)

Adv Proc No A07-90010-HAR MEMORANDUM REGARDING 

GRANTING OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The defendant, ACPE, filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt 10) pursuant to a pre-trial

conference order (Dkt 9), and plaintiff has not responded.

I have reviewed the motion and find that ACPE has established that there are no material facts

in dispute and that it is entitled to a summary judgment of non-dischargeability for the amount

claimed. That amount is $9,161.85 in principal, plus interest at 5% from August 6, 1997 (the date

of a Default Judgment by Clerk of Court in Case No. 4FA-96-1040CI in the District Court for the

State of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District), interest accrued through June 1, 2007, in the amount of

$3,238.78 (ACPE voluntarily reduced the judgment rate of 11% to 5% and has waived attorney

fees awarded it). This totals $12,400.63 as of June 1, 2007, plus $1.2550 per day after that.

Filed On

7/10/07

Case 07-90010 Filed 07/10/07 Entered 07/10/07 15:02:29 Doc# 13 Page 1 of 2	
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The legal basis for this argument is found at pages 7-11 of ACPE’s Memorandum in Support of Motion

for Summary Judgment (Dkt 11). I have not based my ruling on the laches argument made by ACPE See,

ACPE’s Memorandum (Dkt 11) at pages 11-16.

2

See, ACPE’s Memorandum (Dkt 11) at page 7.

MEMORANDUM REGARDING GRANTING OF 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 2 of 2

I am basing the summary judgment on the first legal argument of ACPE, that the amount owed

was simply not discharged by plaintiff’s 1987 bankruptcy.1

 Thus, the amount sought is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 USC § 523(a)(8) as it existed in 1987, when plaintiff filed her first

bankruptcy petition. The subsequent bankruptcy case also does not warrant that the claim be

declared non-dischargeable.

In addition to the cases ACPE cites for the proposition that the non-dischargeability of student

loans under 11 USC § 523(a)(8) is self-executing2

 should be added In re Hoxie, ___ BR ___, 2007

WL 4572868 (SD Cal 2006), which cited Tenn. Student Assistance Corp. v Hood, 541 US 440, 450

(2004). Much of plaintiff’s reasoning seems to be based on the erroneous impression that ACPE

dropped the ball in the first bankruptcy by not establishing non-dischargeability; this theory is

incorrect because non-dischargeability was self-executing.

 DATED: July 10, 2007

 /s/ Herb Ross 

 HERB ROSS

 U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Serve:

Gwen Anagick-Walters, pro se B

Mary Ellen Beardsley, Asst. Atty. Gen’l., for )

Peggy Gingras, Adv. Proc. Mgr. D6333

7/10/07

Case 07-90010 Filed 07/10/07 Entered 07/10/07 15:02:29 Doc# 13 Page 2 of 2