FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUG 9, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 06- 1034 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 05-02207 -CV -RL V- 1 BKC Y N o. 99-78810 -BK C-CR KELDRIC DANTE MOSLEY, D ebtor.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORP., P la int if f- Appe llant, ve rs us KELDRIC DANTE MOSLEY, D efendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 9, 200 7)* Honora ble J ohn R. Gibson, United States Circuit J udg e for the Eig hth Circuit, sit ting by desig nation. 2 Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T , and J O HN R. G IB SO N , Ci rc uit * Judg es . JOHN R . G IBSO N, Circuit Judge: E duc at ion al Cr ed it Mana ge m en t C or por at ion( “ E duc at ion al Cr ed it” ) ap pe al s from the district court’ s decision affirm ing th e bankruptcy court’ s order dis ch ar gin g K el dr ic D an te Mo sle y ’ s st ude nt l oan de bt o n th e ba sis of und ue h a r d s h i p . We a f

f i rm. Mos le y inc ur re d se ve ra l st

ude nt l oans whil e atte ndi ng A lc or n S ta te University , where he m aj ored in histo ry , betw een 1989 and 1 994. At A lcorn State, Mos le y j oin ed the A rm y Re se rv e O ff

ic er s’ T ra ini ng C or

ps. D ur ing his tr ai nin g in th e su m m er o f 19 93 , Mo sl ey ’s hi p a nd ba ckwere i nju redwhen he fel l fr om a ta nk . Me dic al pr obl em s a sso ci at ed w ithhis inj ur

y ult im at el y

le d hi m to re sig n hi s co m m iss ion . Inthe spr ing of

199 4, Mo sle y

le ft A lc or n S ta te be ca

use it w as not of fe ri ng a class he needed to graduate and because he believed his m other’ s health was de te rio rat in g. He l iv edwith h is m ot he r in Atl an ta , Geor gi a, fro m 19 94 to 19 99 . Du ri n g th i s t i m e, Mo s l ey h ad b ri ef s t i n t s at s ev er al jo b s , i n cl u d i n g jo b s at Bru n o ’s Supe rm ark et , Uni te d P arce l Se rv ic e, Ci ty Sani ta ti on , and a m ov in g c om pa ny. He atte m pte d to a tte nd h eavy

e qui pm en t sc hool to le ar n atr ad e, but

he w as una

ble to3

co m ple te the tr ai nin g or

ke ep any of his j obs be ca

use he w as de pr es se d, dr an k he av ily , and e xpe ri en ce d ph y sic al li m itatio ns f ro m his inj ur y . Mo sle y

a lso atte m pte d to go b ac k to sc hool but c oul d no t ob ta in f

inanc ia l a id b ec au se of

the debts he had in curred to attend A lcorn State. H e filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy pr o se in D ec em

be r of 199 9 and o bta ine d a

dis ch ar ge ; the dis ch ar ge did not inc lud e his stu de nt l oans. In 20 00 , Mo sl ey ’s m ot he r co m m it te d h im

to Geor gi a Reg io na l Ho sp it al , a state -s uppo rt ed

m en ta l he al th f

ac ili ty , w he re he stay ed

f or appr oxi m at el y

one to two w eeks and wa s diagno sed with anxiety and depression. Af

ter his relea se, Mos le y sou ght tr eatm en t f

or de pr es sio n and c hr oni c ba ck pa in at the D ep ar

tm en t of V et er an s’ A ff

ai rs . V et er an s’ A ff

ai rs pla ce d hi m

on p re sc ri pti on m ed ic at ionf or de pr es sio n, anxi ety , ba ck pa in and s w el lin g, and h ighblo od p re ssure , w hic h he co nt in ue s t o t ak e b ut whi ch m ak es hi m un ab le “ to fun ct io n.” Mos le y is re gis te re d w iththe G eo rg iaD ep ar tm en t of L ab or and h as sou ght work through the labor po ol since 200 0 with little success. H e w orked at an ai rp ort f or asho rt ti m e but w as una ble to m ee t the phy sic al de m an ds o f the j ob be ca use his m ed ic at ionm ad e him gr oggy and h e cannot

do h eavy li ft ing . H is
m onthly inc om e co nsi sts pr im ar ily of dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts o f $210 f

ro m the Ve terans’ Adm inistration , and he relies on food stam ps to su rvive. M osley

has4

be enhom el es s si nc e 2000 and f re que ntl y sle ep s a t hi s aunt ’ s ho use . H e ha s no car. Mos le y ’ s st

ude nt l oans t ota l a

ppr oxi m at el y

$45 , 000 an d have be enin de fa ult sin ce 199 6. H e ha s no t m ad e an y paym en ts s inc e the n and, in 2004 , f ile d a pr o se m oti on t o r eo pe n hi s bankr upt cy c as e an d c ea se c oll ec tio n a ct ivi tie s. T he bankr upt cy c ourt gr an te d th e m oti on, and M osl ey f ile d an a dve rs ar

y pr oc ee din g ag ai nst U SAF unds , the loan ho lde r at the ti m e, se ek ing dis ch ar ge of his stu de nt loans o n th e ba sis of

und ue hard shi p. Mo sle y ’ s lo an s w er e tr an sf er re d to E duc at ion al Cr ed it, w hic h a cc ep ts t itl e to c er ta in f ed er al stu de nt l oan a cc ount s on w hic h th e bor

ro w er ha s f ile d bankr

upt cy , and E duc at ion al Cr ed it int er ve ne d and rep la cedUSA Fun ds in th e act io n. Pr oc ee din g pr o se , Mo sle y w as the sol e w itn es s and t es tif ie d be fo re the ba nk rupt cy

co ur t ab ou t h is m ed ic al pro bl em s, wo rkhi st ory , and li vi ng si tu at io n. H e intro duc ed

S oc ia l S ec ur ity

and M ed ic ar e earn ing s st at em en ts s how ing that hi s an nua l t ax ab le e ar

nin gs b etw ee n 19 94 and 2 004 ha ve ne ve r ex ce ed ed $7, 700 an d have been as low a s $1,287. T he court also adm itted a letter f rom an E m ory U niv er sity

pr of es sor , D r. A nge l I gle sia s, on V et er an s’ A ff ai rs le tte rh ea d st at ing that Mosley

had been diagnos ed with hy pertension, depression, anxiety , and lower ba ck pa in b ut tha t x- ray s di d no t sh owsig nif ic an t patho log y . E duc at ion al Cr ed it obj ec te d to se ve ra l othe r doc tor s’ le tte rs that M osl ey a tte m pte d to intro duc e, and5

the bankrupt cy

court reluctantly

excluded them

because they

had not been p ro p er l y au t h en t i ca t ed . Th e b an kru p t cy co u rt g ra n t ed th e d i s ch ar g e o f M o s l ey’s s tu d en tl o an s ev en wi t h o u tth es e l et t er s , h o we v er , r ea s o n i n g th at Mo s l ey’s testim ony that he wa s in a vicious cy cle of illness and hom elessness that prevented him from working wa s credible and dem onstrated that repay m ent would be an undu e hard shi p. T he bankr upt cy c ourt i nit ia lly

iss ue d th es e fi ndi ngs or al ly and en te re d asho rt

w ri tte n or de r gr an tin g th e dis ch ar ge ; a bout am onth a ft er

the he ar ing , it

iss ue d and p ubl ish ed

asup ple m en ta l or de r re statin g it s f ind ing s and rat io na le an d c it in g t he rel ev an t ca se law. In re Mo sl ey , 33 0 B .R. 83 2 (B an kr . D. Ga . 2005). Educational Cre dit appealed to the dis trict court, arguing that Mosl ey failed to m ee t hi s burd enbe ca

use he f ai le d to pr oduc e m ed ic al e vid en ce to co rr obor at e his testim ony

that his dis abilities would prevent hi m from repay ing hi s loans. It al so m ove d to str ike the sup ple m en ta l or de r the bankr upt cy c ourt i ssu ed

f or publ ic at iona ft er

the appe al w as f

ile d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e m oti on t o str ike , r ea soni ng tha t the sup ple m en ta l or de r did not a lte r an y of the f ind ing s of fa ct or c onc lus ion s of

lawthe bankr

upt cy c ourt ha d r ea ch ed

or al ly in gr an tin g Mos le y ’ s di sc harg e, but

onl y e la bor at ed on i ts r at ion al e, and thus w as not prej udicial to Educational Credit. T he district court affir m ed the discharge, s u m m ar i l y ap p ro v i n g o f t h e r ea s o n i n g s et fo rt h i n th e b an kru p t cy co u rt ’s6

supp le m en ta l or de r an d c onc lud ing that M osl ey pr oduc ed

suf fi ci en t e vid en ce of his li ke ly ina bil ity to re pay the loans. E duc at ion al Cr ed it ap pe al ed to thi s C ourt, arguing that Mos ley

failed to m eet his burden of proof and that the bank ruptcy court lacked j urisdictio n to enter the suppl em ental order. In th i s ap p ea l fr o m

th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s af

fi rman ce o f t h e b an kru p t cy co u rt ’s or de r, w e re vie wthe bankr upt cy c ourt’ s de ci sio n. S ee E duc . Cr ed it Mgm t. Co rp . v. Fr usho ur (In r e Fr

usho ur), 433 F.3d 393, 398 (4th Cir. 2005 ). E ducational Cr ed it ch al le nge s th e bankr upt cy c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat r ep ay m en t of the stu de nt loans w oul d im

pose an un due hard shi p onMo sle y , w hic h is am ixe d qu es tio n of law and fact. Id. W e re view the bankruptcy court’ s factual f

indin gs for clear error and its legal conclusi ons de no vo. Se e H em ar I ns. Corp. of A m . v. Cox (In re Cox), 338 F. 3d 12 38, 1241 (11t h Cir. 2003 ). T he Bankr

upt cy Co de pr ovi de s th at

stu de nt l oans g en er al ly

are not to be discharged. 11 U. S. C. § 523 (a)( 8). A nar row e xception is m ade, however, wher e

“ ex ce pti ng s uc h de bt f

ro m dis ch ar ge . . . w ill im

pose an un due hard shi p onthe de bto r an d th e de bto r’ s de pe nde nts . ” I d. T he Bankr upt cy Co de doe s no t de fi ne

“ undu e hard shi p, ” but

thi s C ir cu it ha s j oin ed

se ve ra l othe rs in ad opt ing the st an da rdset for th in Bru nn er v . New YorkSta te Hig he r Edu cat io n S erv ic es Co rp ., 831 F. 2d 3 95, 396 ( 2d C ir . 198 7) . S ee I n r e Co x, 338 F . 3d at 12 41. T o e sta bli sh7

u n du e h a r d s h i p , th e B r

u n n e r s t a n d a r dr e qu i r e s th e d e b t o r t o p r o v e b y a preponderance of the evidence: (1 ) that the de bto r cannot m ai nta in, ba se d onc ur

re nt i nc om e an d expe nse s, a‘ m ini m al ’ standard of li vin g f or [ him se lf ] and [ his ] dependents if forc ed to repay the loans; (2) that additio nal ci rc um stanc es e xis t i ndi catin g th at thi s st at e of

a ff ai rs is lik el y

to pe rs ist f or asig nif ic an t po rt ionof

the r ep ay m en t pe ri od o f the stu de nt loans; and ( 3) that the de bto r ha s m ad e good f ai th e ff orts t o r ep ay

the loans. Bru nn er, 8 31 F.2d at 3 96 . E duc at ion al Cr ed it doe s no t c ont es t tha t M osl ey ha s satis fi ed

the f ir st requirem ent, an inabili ty

to m aintain a m inim al standard of living , a s he lives below the poverty

line and has for several y ears. It contends that the bankrup tcy court im properly relaxed Mosley ’ s evidentiary burden on th e second and third re qui re m en ts i n li ght

of his status a s an im

pove ri she d pr o se li tig an t. T he bankr upt cy c ourt c onc lud ed

that M osl ey

e sta bli she d un due hard shi p w ithhis cr ed ibl e te sti m ony

that he ha s tr ie d to obt ai n w ork bu t, f or te n y ears , his

“ subs tanti al phy sic al and e m oti ona l a ilm en ts” have pr ev en te d hi m f ro m hol din g a steady j ob. While the letter fr om Dr . I glesias corroborates Mosley ’ s testim ony that he ha s be endia gnos ed

w ithse ve ra l i lln es se s, the c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat those ill ne sse s are li ke ly

to im pa ir Mo sle y ’ s a

bil ity to re pay his loans w as ba se d on Mos le y ’ s te sti m ony . C iti ng s ev er al bankr upt cy c ourt c as es and tw o C ourts o f Appeals ca ses, E ducational Credit argues that corroborating m edical evidence8

independ ent from

the debtor’ s testim ony

is required to m ake the second Brunner show ing w he re m ed ic al dis ab ili tie s are the “ ad dit ion al c ir cum stanc es ” that m ak e it un li ke ly the de bt or

wil l b e ab le to rep ay

hi s l oa ns . T he S ixth C ir cu it re ce ntl y r ej ec te d E duc at ion al Cr ed it’ s po sit ionin Barr ett v. E ducational Credit Managem ent Corp., 487 F.3d 353, 356 (6th Cir. 2007 ). In Barr ett, the bankruptcy

court discharged the debtor’ s stud ent loans after co nc lud ing that the de bto r es ta bli she d un due hard shi p un de r Br unne r be ca

use various m edical condition s, particularly avascular nec rosis, caused him severe pa in th atpre ve nt edhi m

fro m work in g a nd m ad e em

pl oyers re lu ct an t t o h ire hi m . Id . a t 35 7- 58. T he bankr upt cy c ourt’ s c onc lus ionw as ba se d larg el y on the debtor’ s testim ony

at the adversar

y proceeding, w here the debtor also introduced ta x r ec or ds and a

le tte r fr om

his doc tor

that do cum en te d hi s c an ce r tr eatm en t bu t not his a va sc ular ne cr osi s. I d. a t 36 1. T he S ixth C ir cu it co nc lud ed that this ev ide nc e w as suf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the c onc lus ionof

und ue hard shi p, r ej ec tin g Educational Cre dit’s argum ent that the debtor was re quired to produce co rr obor at ing m ed ic al e vid en ce . I d. a t 35 9. T he c ourt r ea sone d th at r equir ing co rr obor at ing e vid en ce w he n th e de bto r cannot a ff or d e xpe rt

te sti m ony

or doc um en ta tio n “ im

pose s an un ne ce ssary

and undue bur de n on[ the de bto r] in establishi ng his burden of proof.” Id. at 360 (quo ting Bankrup tcy Appellate P anel opin ion) (internal quotatio n m arks om itted). A s the court explained, the crucial9

re qui re m en t i s th at

the de bto r showhowhis m ed ic al c ondi tio ns p re ve nt h im f ro m w orkin g, id. , and this c anbe a cc om pli she d by

an arr ay of e vid en ce , inc lud ing the de bto r’ s c re dib le te sti m ony , id. a t 36 1. W e ar e pe rs ua de d by

Barr ett and d ec lin e to a dopt ar ule r equir ing Mo sle y

to subm it ind ep en de nt m ed ic al e vid en ce to co rr obor at e his te sti m ony that hi s de pr es sio n and b ac k pr obl em s w er e ad dit ion al c ir cum stanc es li ke ly to re nde r him
u n ab l e t o re p ay h i s s tu d en tl o an s . We s ee n o i n co n s i s t en cy b et we en Ba rr et t ’s hol din g th at

the de bto r’ s de ta ile d te sti m ony w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce of

und ue hardship andthe Courts of Appeals ca ses cited by Educational Cre dit where de bto rs ’ le ss d et ai le d te sti m ony w as he ld t o be ins uf

fi ci en t. S ee I n r e T ir ch , 409 F. 3d 6 77, 682 ( 6thCi r. 200 5) ( de bto r’ s te sti m ony ins uf fi ci en t t o sh owund

ue hard shi p be ca

use it did not e xpl ai n ho whe r he al th p ro ble m s pr ev en te d he r fr om w orkin g) ; B ri ght fu l v. P en n. H igh er E duc . A ssi stanc e A ge nc y , 267 F . 3d 3 24, 328 (3 d C ir . 200 1) ( de bto r’ s te sti m ony ins uf fi ci en t be ca

use it la ck ed de ta il to e xpl ai n how her c ondi tion im

paired her a

bilityto work). In particular , w e observe that Barr ett specifically

stated that Tirc h does no t require a debtor to prod uce expert te sti m ony to m ee t hi s burd enof

sho w ing that hi s m ed ic al c ondi tio ns i m pa ir his ab ili ty to w ork, r ef

uti ng E duc at ion al Cr ed it’ s in te rp re ta tio n of T ir ch . B ar

re tt, 487 F.3 d a t 3 59 .10

Educational Cre dit also argues that Mos ley ’ s m edical prognosi s is a subject re qui ri ng s pe ci al iz ed

m ed ic al kno w le dge und er F ed . R. E vid . 701 and 7 02, m ad e ap pli ca ble to the a dve rs ar

y pr oc ee din g inbankr

upt cy by Bankr upt cy Ru le 901 7, a n dth a tM o s l e y wa s n o tc o mp e t e n tt o g i v e h i s o p i n i o n o n th i s mat t e r . M o s l e y, however, did no t purport to g ive an opini on on his m edical prognosi s, but rather testified from

personal knowledge about how his struggl es with depression, back pa in, and the sid e ef

fe ct s of his m ed ic at ionhave m ad e it dif fi cu lt fo r him

to obt ai n w ork. T he bankr

upt cy c ourt di d no t a

buse it s di sc re tio n by

a dm itt ing thi s te sti m ony . S ee Barr ett, 487 F . 3d at 36 2 ( w hil e de bto r cannot giv e anopi nio n on his pr ogno sis or

the m ed ic al c au se of

his a ilm en ts, he c anand m ust te sti fy about how his disabi lities affec t his abilit y to work to car

ry his burden). W e nowtur

n to E duc at ion al Cr ed it’ s arg um en t tha t the r ec or d do es not supp ort a c onc lus ionof

und ue hard shi p be ca

use Mo sle y ’ s te sti m ony

did not es ta bli sh the la st tw o part s of the Br unne r standard , that he li ke ly w ill be una

ble to re pay his stu de nt l oans i n th e fu tur e an d th at he ha s m ad e good

f ai th e ff orts t o repay the loans. E ducational Credit poin ts out th at the Brunner r equirem ents are

“ dem anding ” ones, B rightful, 267 F.3d at 328, and contends th at the bankruptcy court failed to apply

them with the appropriate level of r igor. T he bankruptcy co urt i nde ed

e xpr es se d c onc er

n th at astr ic t a ppl ic at ionof

Br unne r tr eats t oo hars hly de bto rs li vin g inabj ec t po ve rty , c iti ng E duc at ion al Cr ed it Mana ge m en t11

Co rp . v. P oll ey s, 356 F . 3d 1 302 (1 0thCi r. 200 4) ; ho w ev er , the c ourt ul tim at el y an al y ze d M osl ey ’ s c as e unde r the c om ple te Br unne r fr am ew ork a s our pr ec ed en t re qui re s. U nde r Br

unne r, und

ue hard shi p do es not

e xis t si m ply be ca use the de bto r pr es en tly is una ble to re pay

his or he r stu de nt l oans; the ina bil ity to pay m ust be

“ lik el y to co nti nue f

or asig nif ic an t t im e, ” Co x, 338 F . 3d at 12 42, suc h th at the re is a “ ce rt ai nty

of hop el es sne ss” that the de bto r w ill be able to re pay the loans w ith in the r ep ay m en t pe ri od, Br igh tf

ul, 267 F . 3d at 32 8 ( ci ta tio n and i nte rn al quo ta tio n om itted). T he bankr

upt cy c ourt c or re ct ly c onc lud ed

that M osl ey ’ s te sti m ony

m et thi s standard . I n sh ow ing that “ ad dit ion al c ir cum stanc es ” m ak e it unl ike ly that he w ill be able to re pay

his loans f

or asig nif ic an t pe ri od o f tim e, Mo sle y te sti fi ed that hi s de pr es sio n and c hr oni c ba ck pa in h av e fr

ustrate d hi s e ff

orts t o w ork, and thus his ab ili ty to re pay his loans, a s w el l a s to pr ovi de him se lf w ithshe lte r, f

ood, and transportation , f

or several y ears. Mosley ’ s m edical problem s are c onfirm ed by Dr . Ig le sia s’ s le tte r an d no t r ef ute d by E duc at ion al Cr ed it. Mo sle y ’ s te sti m ony that i t ha s be endif

fi cu lt fo r him

to hol d aj ob i s a lso unr ef ute d and i s c or

ro bor at ed by his So ci al S ec ur ity

e ar nin gs s ta te m en ts. H e te sti fi ed that hi s ba ck

pr obl em s pr ec lud e him f ro m he av y li ft ing , w hic h r

ule s ou t m ost

of the j obs av ai la

ble in the la

bor poo l fr om w hic h he se ek s w ork. E xa ce rb at ing the pr obl em , his m ed ic at ion s m ak e it dif fi cu lt fo r him

to func tio n. H e did

not f ini sh c oll eg e an d ha s be enuna ble to12

co m ple te the tr ai nin g ne ce ssary to le ar n atr ad e. Mo sle y

r el ie s onpub lic assistance program s for health car e and food, and the bankruptcy court had before it sufficient evidence to supp ort a finding that th ere is no reason to b elieve that Mosley ’ s conditi on will im prove in the future. Mosley ’ s evidence of m edical p ro b l ems, l ac ko f s k i l l s , a n dd i re l i v i n g co n d i t i o n s s up p o rt th e b an kru p t cy co u rt ’s finding that it is hig hly

unlik ely he w ill becom e able to re pay his loans . See Educ. Cr ed it Mgm

t. Co rp . v. N y s, 446 F . 3d 9 38, 947 ( 9thCi r. 200 6) ( re le vant “ad d i t i o n a l c i r c u ms t a n c e s ” i n c l u d e d e b t o r ’s s e r i o u s p h ys i c a l o r men t a l d i s ab i l i t y, lack of usable or m arketable j ob ski lls, and lack of assets that could be used to p ay the loan). T he bankr

upt cy c ourt a lso c or

re ct ly c onc lud ed

that M osl ey ’ s te sti m ony es ta bli she d th e fi na l B runne r re qui re m en t, that he ha s m ad e good f ai th e ff orts t o re p ay h i s s tu d en tl o an s . M o s l ey h as n o tm ad e p aym en t s s i n ce 1 9 9 6 , b u ta d eb t o r’s

“ fa ilure to m ak e a paym en t, standi ng a lon e, doe s no t e sta bli sh a la ck of goo d fa ith . ” P oll ey s, 356 F . 3d at 13 11. G ood fa ithis m ea sur ed by the de bto r’ s e ff

orts to o bta in e m

plo ym en t, m ax im iz e inc om e, and m ini m iz e expe nse s; h is d ef au lt sh ou ldres ul t, n ot fro m

hi s ch oi ces , bu t fr om

fact or s b ey on d h is reas on ab le co nt ro l. Se e Inr e Ro be rs on, 999 F . 2d 1 132, 113 6 ( 7thCi r. 199 3) . Mo sle y ha s a tte m

pte d to fi nd w ork, a s de m onstrate d by the se ri es of

j obs he he ld whil e liv ing w ithhis
m ot he r fro m

19 94 to 19 99 an d h is pa rti ci pa ti on in th e labo r po ol si nc e 2 00 0.13

Be ca use of his m ed ic al c ondi tio ns, Mo sle y ha s be enlarg el y

uns uc ce ssf

ul, and thus ha s no t ha d th e m eans e ve n to a tte m pt t o m ak e pay

m en ts. A s hi s S oc ia l S ec ur ity statem ents sho w, his incom e has been below the poverty line for y ears. H e lives without a hom e and car

and cannot further m inim ize his expenses. Mosley pr oduc ed suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort the bankr upt cy c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat he ha s m ad e good

f ai th e ff orts t o ob ta in w ork so that he c ansup port hi m se lf and rep ay hi s d eb ts . Educational Cre dit argues that the goo d faith requirem ent oblig ated Mosley to atte m pt t o ne got ia te ar ep ay

m en t pl anund er

the I nc om e Co nti nge nt R ep ay m en t Pr ogr am ( w hic h a dj ust s th e de bto r’ s paym en t i n r es pons e to h ar dshi p and e xte nds the r ep ay m en t pe ri od t o a s m

uc h a s 25 y ears ) or

se ek an a dm ini str at ive dis ch ar ge ba se d ondis ab ili ty be fo re p ur su in g t hi s u nd ue ha rd sh ip di sc ha rg e in ba nk rupt cy . Whil e a de bto r’ s e ff

or t t o ne got ia te ar ep ay

m en t pl anc er

ta inl y de m onstrate s go od fa ith , se e Fr

usho ur , 433 F . 3d at 40 2- 03, c ourts h av e re j ec te d ape r se r

ule that a d e b t o r c a n n o ts h o wg o o df

a i t h w h e r e h e o r

s h e h a s n o te n r o l l e di n th e I n c o me Conting ent Repay

m ent Program . See Barr ett, 487 F. 3d at 364 ; Tir ch, 409 F. 3d at 682. E duc at ion al Cr ed it poi nts out that M osl ey ’ s c ur

re nt p ay m en ts unde r the Program would be zer o, but the Program is not alway s a viable option for debtors lik e Mos le y , a s it

m ay r equir e the m

e ff ec tiv el y to “ tr ad [e ] one non dis ch ar ge ab le debt for another” beca

use any debt that is dis charged under the program is treated14

as ta xable inc om e. B ar

re tt, 487 F . 3d at 36 4. I n th is i nst an ce , it is que sti ona

ble
w he the r Mos le y

e ve n kn ewabout

a lte rn at ive r ep ay

m en t op tio ns, and, in lig ht o f his dir e liv ing c ondi tio ns and p er sis te nt i na bil ity to obt ai n st ea dy

w ork, the bankr upt cy c ourt ha d su ff

ic ie nt e vid en ce f

ro m w hic h to c onc lud e that the se op ti on s wo ul d n ot ha ve pro vi de d M os le y a real is ti c so lu ti on to hi s i nabi li ty to p ay . A s th e bankr

upt cy c ourt ob se rv ed , Mo sle y

m ad e inquir ie s a

bout r es olv ing his stu de nt l oan ob lig at ion s w iththe U nit ed S ta te s D ep ar

tm en t of E duc at ion , the G eo rg iaS tud en t F inanc e Co m m iss ion , the V et er an s’ A dm ini str at ion , and h is congressm an. His fa ilure to enroll in the Incom e Contingent Repaym ent Program or to pur sue oth er

non -b an kr

upt cy opt ion s w ithE duc at ion al Cr ed it doe s no t de tr ac t f ro m the goo d f

ai th h e ha s de m onstrate d inthe se inquir ie s and i n hi s attem pts to o btain work. W e also rej ect E ducational Credit’ s argum ent that Mos le y e xhi bit ed

ba d f ai th b y f ai lin g to c oope rate w ithdis co ve ry in thi s c as e. T he co u rtfo u n dth at Mo s l ey u s ed h i s b es tef fo rt s t o an s we r E du ca t i o n al Cr ed i t ’s int er ro ga tor ie s and f

ile m ed ic al doc um en ta tio n w iththe c ourt; that do cum en ta tio n w as e xc lud ed

be ca use Mo sle y

did not kno whowto au the nti cate it , not be ca use he wa s uncoop erative in discovery . W e af firm the bankruptcy

court’ s conclusio n that Mosley has m ade good faith efforts to repay his stu dent loans and would suffer undu e hardship if they

we re e xcepted from

discharge.15

Fi n al l y, we r ev i ew th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s o rd erd en yin g Edu ca t i o n al Cr ed i t ’s
m oti on t o stri ke the sup ple m en ta l or de r iss ue d by the bankr

upt cy c ourt a ft er

the notice of appeal wa s filed. The district court concluded that the bankrup tcy court l ac k ed ju ri s d i ct i o n t o en t erth e s up p l emen t al o rd erb u td en i ed Edu ca t i o n al Cr ed i t ’s
m otion to strike because the supplem ental order did not alter, but on ly elaborated on, the findings of fac t and conclusi ons of law the bankruptcy court had announ ced orally . Educational Cre dit reiterates its ar gum ent that the bankrup tcy co urt l ac ke d j ur isd ic tio n to e nte r the sup ple m en ta l or de r onc e E duc at ion al Cr ed it ha d f ile d it s no tic e of

appe al , c iti ng I n r e Co m

bin ed Me ta ls R ed

uc tio n C o. , 557 F. 2d 1 79, 200 ( 9thCi r. 197 7) ( statin g th e “ ge ne ra l r ule . . . that on ce anot ic e of ap pe al ha s be enf

ile d, the low er

c ourt l ose s j ur isd ic tio n ov er the sub j ec t m atte r of the appeal” and holdin g that lower c ourts lacked jurisdiction to vacate or m odify an ord er u nd er ap pe al ). The f iling of a notice of a

ppeal generally

“ confers j urisdictio n on th e court of appe al s and d ive sts the dis tr ic t c ourt of it s c ontro l ov er

tho se a spe ct s of

the c as e inv olv ed in the appe al . ” G ri ggs v. P ro vid en t C onsum er D isc . Co . , 459 U . S. 56, 58 (1 982) . A n e xc ep tio n to thi s r ule e xis ts, how ev er , w he re the low er c ourt a ct s in ai d of appe llate r ev ie w , and a lower court has j urisdictio n to reduce its oral f i n d i n g s t o w r i t i n g e v e n i f ap a rt y h a s f

i l e dan o t i c e o f

ap p e a l i n th e i n t e r i m. See Silberkraus v. T he Seele y Co. ( In re S ilberkraus), 336 F.3d 864 , 869 (9th Cir.16

2003 ) (stating that “ the bankrupt cy court retained j urisdictio n to pu blish its written fi ndi ngs of

f ac t and c onc lus ion s of

lawbe ca use the y w er e co nsi ste nt w iththe co u rt ’s o ra l fi n d i n g s an db ec au s e t h ey ai du s i n o u r r ev i ew o f t h e c o u rt ’s de ci si on ”). Th e b an kru p t cy co u rt ’s s up p l emen t al o rd erai d ed th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s re vie wand a ids our s inthi s c as e by e xpl ai nin g it s f

ind ing s w ithc om

ple te c itatio ns to the gov erning cases. Educational Cre dit asserts that the order bolstered an oth er w ise ina de qua te r ec or d, but it doe s no t po int

us t o any spe ci fi c ins tanc es of em be lli shm en t. O ur

r ev ie wof

the sup ple m en ta l or de r an d th e co urt’ s or al f ind ing s re ve al s th at

the y are c onsi ste nt; m or eo ve r, in the or de r gr an tin g th e dis ch ar ge , the ba nk rupt cy

co ur t s ta te d t ha t i t re se rv edth e ri gh t t o e nt er s up pl em en ta l fi nd in gs . T he sup ple m en ta l or de r did not va cate or m odi fy the or de r on a

ppe al , and the bankrupt cy

court had j urisdictio n to iss ue it in this instance. We AF FI RM b o t h th e b an kru p t cy co u rt ’s o rd erd i s ch ar g i n g Mo s l ey’s stu de nt l oans and the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of the m oti on t o stri ke the supp lem ental order.