《楊清泉律師專欄》STUDENT LOAN OF $5,909 BECOMES $80,290 BECAUSE OF …(Part II)
楊清泉律師事務所
STUDENT LOAN OF $5,909 BECOMES $80,290 BECAUSE OF FRIVOLOUS APPEAL BY DEBTOR
《楊清泉律師專欄》STUDENT LOAN OF $5,909 BECOMES $80,290 BECAUSE OF FRIVOLOUS APPEAL BY DEBTOR (Part I)
The 7th Circuit said that it did not find the debtor’s argument to be compelling. The court applied the “duck” test. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it must be a duck. “We find the following facts established below relevant to our inquiry into the purpose of the MSOE loan: (a) MSOE is a school; (2) The loan was part of a package that included scholarship and grant money toward completion of the debtor’s education at MSOE; (3) The promissory note for the loan was signed while the debtor was a student at MSOE; (4)The debtor had to be a student to be eligible for the loan he received from MSOE; and (5) The MSOE loan money was deposited into the debtor’s student account at MSOE, an account presumably he would not have had if he were not a student. Together these facts establish that the loan was part of a program specifically designed by the school to provide financial support to students working to complete their education. Under the purpose-driven test this court has adopted, there is no question that the loan was educational. As a result, we affirm the finding that 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8) bars the debtor from discharging his debt to MSOE in bankruptcy because the debt resulted from an educational loan,” the court said.
In determining that the debtor and his attorney should be sanctioned, the District Court determined that the appeal, “as litigated, was frivolous.” “Motions were filed by appellant without any basis in the rules, deadlines were ignored, procedural requirements were dismissed as unnecessary and duplicative filings and objections were made thereby making it impossible for appellee to minimize its costs in this action,” the court said. “Attorney for debtor should go back to law school and retake the bar exam,” the court added.
Lawrence Bautista Yang is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and has been in law practice for thirty years. He specializes in bankruptcy, business and civil litigation and has handled more than four thousand successful bankruptcy cases in California. He speaks Mandarin and Fujien and looks forward to discussing your case with you personally. Please call (626) 284-1142 for an appointment at 1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.
《楊清泉律師專欄》STUDENT LOAN OF $5,909 BECOMES $80,290 BECAUSE OF FRIVOLOUS APPEAL BY DEBTOR (Part I)
The 7th Circuit said that it did not find the debtor’s argument to be compelling. The court applied the “duck” test. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it must be a duck. “We find the following facts established below relevant to our inquiry into the purpose of the MSOE loan: (a) MSOE is a school; (2) The loan was part of a package that included scholarship and grant money toward completion of the debtor’s education at MSOE; (3) The promissory note for the loan was signed while the debtor was a student at MSOE; (4)The debtor had to be a student to be eligible for the loan he received from MSOE; and (5) The MSOE loan money was deposited into the debtor’s student account at MSOE, an account presumably he would not have had if he were not a student. Together these facts establish that the loan was part of a program specifically designed by the school to provide financial support to students working to complete their education. Under the purpose-driven test this court has adopted, there is no question that the loan was educational. As a result, we affirm the finding that 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8) bars the debtor from discharging his debt to MSOE in bankruptcy because the debt resulted from an educational loan,” the court said.
In determining that the debtor and his attorney should be sanctioned, the District Court determined that the appeal, “as litigated, was frivolous.” “Motions were filed by appellant without any basis in the rules, deadlines were ignored, procedural requirements were dismissed as unnecessary and duplicative filings and objections were made thereby making it impossible for appellee to minimize its costs in this action,” the court said. “Attorney for debtor should go back to law school and retake the bar exam,” the court added.
Lawrence Bautista Yang is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and has been in law practice for thirty years. He specializes in bankruptcy, business and civil litigation and has handled more than four thousand successful bankruptcy cases in California. He speaks Mandarin and Fujien and looks forward to discussing your case with you personally. Please call (626) 284-1142 for an appointment at 1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.
把此文章分享到：
關於 楊清泉律師事務所
