Court Opinion

ID: 9519649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:21:20.356841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:34.966940
License: Public Domain

SCHERMER, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring in result.
I disagree with my colleagues’ opinion as to the weight to be afforded the ICRP. As stated by the majority, SLGF’s second argument on appeal is that the bankruptcy court failed to adequately consider the availability of the ICRP in its determination of undue hardship. I agree with the majority that the argument is factually inaccurate and that the bankruptcy court squarely considered that factor in reaching its decision. If the majority opinion ended there, I would merely concur in the result as explained below. However, the majority decision does not stop there. Rather, it includes my colleagues’ opinion as to the weight to be afforded the ICRP in the student loan dischargeability context. I do not agree with the opinion expressed by the majority.
The Supreme Court has instructed us that when the Bankruptcy Code’s meaning is plain, the sole job of a court is to enforce the statute according to its terms.17 In the student loan context, Congress has limited the discharge of student loans in bankruptcy to situations where continuing financial responsibility for the student loan will impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents.18 The debtor must face more than mere or ordinary hardship in order to discharge a student loan. The debtor must establish undue or excessive hardship before a student loan may be discharged. If the budget demonstrates that a debtor can afford payments under the ICRP, continued liability on the student loan does not create an undue hardship. I disagree with the majority’s assessment that the ability to afford payments under the ICRP is merely a single factor among many to be considered in the student loan dischargeability context. Instead, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, a debtor’s ability to afford payments under the ICRP is determinative of the issue: continued liability for a student loan where a debtor can afford the payments does not create an undue hardship.
*98Despite my philosophical difference with my colleagues’ view on the ICRP, I concur in the result. I am reluctant to discharge the student loan of a healthy thirty-one year old with no disabilities.19 However, this case is distinguishable from the many cases where I have concluded that the student loan did not create an undue hardship in one important aspect. In each of those cases, the debtor’s budget afforded the ability to make minimal payments toward the student loan debt under the ICRP.20 That is not the case in the present situation where the Debtor’s budget does not permit payment of the amount which would be due under the ICRP, nor does the Debtor face any prospect which would permit repayment in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, I concur in the result.

. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6, 120 S.Ct. 1942, 147 L.Ed.2d 1 (2000); U.S. v. Ron Pair Enter., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989).

. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) (emphasis added).

. See, e.g. Parker v. Gen. Revenue Corp. (In re Parker), 328 B.R. 548 (8th Cir. BAP 2005)(re-fusing to discharge student loan of fifty-one year old); Long v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Long), 292 B.R. 635 (8th Cir. BAP 2003)(refusing to discharge student loan of healthy thirty-nine year old); Cline v. Ill. Student Loan Assistance Ass’n (In re Cline), 248 B.R. 347, 351-56 (8th Cir. BAP 2000)(Schermer, J., dissenting)(thirty-five year old with no disability).

. Parker, 328 B.R. at 553; Long, 292 B.R. at 639; Cline, 248 B.R. at 352.