2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-19-2010 

# J ones v . E C M C P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3395

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " J one s v . E C MC " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 738. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/738BL D- 2 5 0 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3395

___________ I N R E : I R V I N G C . J O N E S a/ k/ a K ar amo M uchur i Sul i eman, D ebt or I RV I N G C. J O N ES, A ppel l ant v . E C MC

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 02590) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le J. W il li am D itter, Jr.

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed byt he C l erk forPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al forL ack of J ur i s di ct i on o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 J ul y22, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , C H A G A R E S and V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t19, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antI r vi ng C . J ones , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, fi l ed thi s appea l s eeki ng r evi ew of2

t he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on thatcert ai n of hi s s tudentl oans w er e not di s char geabl e. A ppel l ee Educat i onal C r edi tM anage m entC orpor at i on ( “EC M C ”) has m oved fors um m arydi s m i s s al on t he gr ound t hatthe pr es entact i on i s m oot . Forthe re a so n s th a t f

o llo w , w e w ill g ra n t E C M C ’s m o tio n f o r su m m a ryd ism iss a l. O n J une 18, 2007, I r vi ng C . J ones fi l ed an a dver s arypr ocee di ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es B ankrupt cyC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a aga i ns tE C M C , s eeki ng t o d i s c h a r g e h i s s tu d e n td e b to we d t o E CMC. S e e Ba n k r . No . 0 7 - 0 0 2 1 7 ( Ba n k r . E . D. Pa. ) . T he B ankrupt cyC our tent er ed j udgm entagai ns thi m on J ul y22, 2008, hol di ng t hat th e se lo a n s w e re n o n d isc h a rg e a b le u n d e r 1 1 U .S .C . § 5 2 3 (a )(8 ). Jo n e s th e n a ttem p ted to appea l t hi s deci s i on t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tand then t o t hi s C our t . W e i ni t i al l yi nform ed the par t i es t hatt he appe al m i ghtbe di s m i s s ed as unt i m el y . T hen, byor derdat ed D ece m ber4, 2009, t he part i es w er e i nform ed thatthe ques t i on of appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on w oul d be r efe r r ed t o t he mer i t s panel . D ue t o t he compl i cat ed pr ocedur al hi s t oryof thi s cas e and o u r c o n c lu sio n th a t w e lac k ju risd ictio n b e c a u se th is a p p e a l is n o w m o o t, w e d e c lin e to addr es s t he ques t i on of the t i m el i nes s of thi s appea l atthe pr es entt i m e. See M er l e v. U ni t ed St at es , 351 F. 3d 92, 94 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “W e l ack j ur i s di ct i on w hen ‘ t he i s s ues pr es ent ed ar e no l onger“l i ve” ort he part i es l ack a l egal l ycogni zabl e i nt er es ti n t he o u tcom e.’”). I n hi s i nform al br i ef, fi l ed on J anuary19, 2010, J ones ar gued thathi s appea l w as t i m el yand thatt he B ankrupt cyC our terr ed i n concl udi ng thathi s s tudentl oans3

guar ant eed byE C M C w er e notdi s char geabl e. O n M ar ch 29, 2010, E C M C fi l ed a mot i on t o s um m ar i l ydi s m i s s t he appe al . I n i t , E C M C ar gues thata mot i on t o di s m i s s fi l ed by J ones i n a s epar at e pr ocee di ng i ndi cat es thathi s s tudentl oans have a l l been c ons ol i dat ed i nt o a s i ngl e l oan undert he W i l l i am D . For d L oan Pr ogr am. See D kt . E ntr yN o. 6, C i v. N o. 09- 01913 ( E . D . Pa. ) . A ccor di ng t o E C M C , i n cons ol i dat i ng al l of hi s out s t andi ng s tudentl oans , J ones ent er ed i nt o a new l oan, w hi ch di s char ged the debtt o E C M C . See C l arke v. Pai ge ( I n r e C l arke) , 266 B . R . 301, 307 ( B ankr . E . D . Pa. 2001) ( i ndi cat i ng t hat

“ f e d e ra l co n so lid a tio n lo a n s a re n e w a g re e m e n ts w h ich d isc h a rg e th e liab ili ties o f th e o ld l oans and cr eat e thei row n obl i gat i ons ”) ; s ee a l s o H i at tv. I nd. St at e StudentA s s i s t ance C om m ’ n, 36 F. 3d 21, 23 ( 7t h C i r . 1994) ( expl ai ni ng thatdebt or ’ s cons ol i dat ed l oan cons t i tut ed a “ new ” l oan w hi ch di s char ged the or i gi nal l oan) . B eca us e al l of the l oans guar ant eed byE C M C , w hi ch w er e the s ubj ectof the under l y i ng pr ocee di ngs , have be en pai d i n ful l t hr ough t he cons ol i dat i on, E C M C m ai nt ai ns thatther e i s no cas e or contr over s ypr es ent l ybefor e thi s cour tand thatthe i ns t antappea l s houl d t her efor e be di s m i s s ed. See I n r e A bbot t s D ai r i es of Pa. , I nc. , 788 F. 2d 143, 150 n. 6 ( 3d C i r . 1986) (e x p lain in g th a t an a p p e a l m u st b e d ism iss e d a s m o o t w h e n a n e v e n t o c c u rs th a t p re v e n ts t he appe l l at e courtfr om gr ant i ng eff ect i ve r el i ef) ; I n r e U ni t ed M er chs . & M fr s . , I nc. , 138 B .R . 4 2 6 , 4 2 8 (D . D e l. 19 9 2 ) (s tatin g th a t d ism iss a l o f b a n k ru p tcy ap p e a l is a p p ro p ria te w h ere there h as b ee n “‘su b stan ti al co n su m m ati o n ’ of the b an k rup tcyp lan o r a compre hens i ve cha nge of c i r cumst ance s has occurr ed”) ; R es ol ut i on T rus tC orp. v.H aught( I n r e H aught ) , 120 B . R . 233, 235 ( M . D . Fl a. 1990) ( expl ai ni ng thatw her e a de bt

ar os e pr i ort o t he comm ence m entof the ca s e, “the ques t i on of di s char geabi l i t yi s r ender ed ac ad em ic w h en that d eb t i s fu ll ysati sfied p o stpe ti ti o n ”). A ppel l anthas notfi l ed a r es pons e t o E C M C ’ s m ot i on and di d notaddr es s the q u esti o n o f m o o tnes s in h is i n fo rm al brief. W e a re sa ti sfied , h o w ev er, byA p p ell an t’ s ow n m ot i on t o di s m i s s fi l ed i n C i v. N o. 09- 01913 ( E . D . Pa. ) and bythe pr i nt outfr om t he N at i onal StudentL oan D at a Sy s t em, at t ache d t o E C M C ’ s m ot i on as E xhi bi tB , that A p p e llan t’s o rig in a l d e b t to E C M C n o lo n g e r e x ists. A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th is ap p ea l i s m o o t, an d w e w il l gran t E C M C ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryd ism issal. S ee 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 & I.O .P . 1 0 .6 .

4