Opinion

In Re Marjorie Jo Faish, Debtor. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency v. Marjorie Jo Faish

  • 72 F.3d 298
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Filed
Jan 16, 1996
Status
Published
On the bench
Scirica, Cowen, Roth, Sloviter, Becker, Stapleton, Mansmann, Greenberg, Nygaard, Alito, Lewis, McKee, Sarokin
Cited by
233 cases

explaining that “undue hardship” is dependent upon three factors: (1) whether a debtor is able to maintain a minimal standard of living for themselves and their dependents if forced to repay the loans; (2) whether additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period; and (3) whether the debtor has made a good faith effort to repay the loans

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that “undue hardship” is dependent upon three factors: (1) whether a debtor is able to maintain a minimal standard of living for themselves and their dependents if forced to repay the loans; (2) whether additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period; and (3) whether the debtor has made a good faith effort to repay the loans
  • finding that, although $300.00 student loan payment would significantly impact the disposable income of debtor who earned a yearly salary of $27,-000.00, repayment of student loan would not impose an undue hardship on the Debtor and her son
  • finding that debtor failed to demonstrate undue hardship despite “ ‘significant’ ” health problems arising from affliction with Crohn’s disease where such condition did not interfere with her ability to perform her job
  • noting that the “undue hardship” standard “safeguards the financial integrity of the student loan program by not permitting debtors who have obtained the substantial benefits of an education funded by taxpayer dollars to dismiss their obligation simply because repayment of the borrowed funds would require some major personal and financial sacrifices.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

Jan. 16, 1996.

The petition for rehearing filed by appellant having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.

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.