Opinion

Brown v. United States Department of Education

  • 231 F. App'x 688
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
May 10, 2007
Status
Published
On the bench
Boochever, Farris, Skopil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.9%

noting student loan debtor is required to file an adversary proceeding by service of a summons and complaint

How later courts described this case

  • noting student loan debtor is required to file an adversary proceeding by service of a summons and complaint

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Brown appeals the district court’s determination that his delinquent student loan debts were not discharged in prior bankruptcy proceedings. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

“Generally, student loan obligations are presumed to be nondischargeable in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(8).” In re Rifino, 245 F.3d 1083 , 1087 (9th Cir.2001). While there are exceptions, Brown has not demonstrated that he qualified for such relief. His first bankruptcy petition was filed before the expiration of the five-year period specified in the former version of § 523(a)(8). Although this Chapter 13 petition was later converted to a Chapter 7 petition after the five-year period, the conversion did not change the date of filing. See In re Hines, 147 F.3d 1185 , 1188 n. 5 (9th Cir.1998) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 348 (a)). Brown also failed to file an adversary complaint or otherwise seek a ruling from the bankruptcy court that his student loans should be discharged because of undue hardship. See Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood, 541 U.S. 440, 451-52 , 124 S.Ct. 1905 , 158 L.Ed.2d 764 (2004) (noting student loan debtor is required to file an adversary proceeding by service of a summons and complaint). Moreover, the bankruptcy court’s discharge orders specifically noted that student loans are not generally dis-chargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(8).

Finally, there is no statute of limitations that bars collection of defaulted student loans. See United States v. Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir.1994) (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)). We will not consider Brown’s argument raised for the first time on appeal that defendants are not the real parties in interest. See In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916 , 924 n. 7 (9th Cir.2004) (noting an argument raised for the first time on appeal is waived).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.