Student loan debtor refuses to pay his bills. Demands the courts rewrite the law to suit him

[ShootSpeeders]

The constitution says courts cannot write laws. Courts should tell the deadbeat plaintiff - if you don't like this law, then go to congress and get it changed.

This Court Case Could Unshackle Americans From Student Debt

oct 8 2015 When Robert Murphy said he wanted to try to get his student loan debt erased, the person overseeing his bankruptcy case told him he had a better shot of getting hit by a bus. Now he’s closer than ever to victory.

The unemployed 65-year-old, acting as his own attorney, spent three years appealing his way to the Boston federal court that is now considering his case. A win for Murphy would relieve him of hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt—and could fundamentally change the way U.S. bankruptcy courts handle borrowers who can't repay college loans.

At the center of Murphy’s battle are federal rules that make it nearly impossible for borrowers to get rid of student loans. Most consumer debt goes away in bankruptcy, which was designed to give Americans and companies a fresh start. But in the 1970s, Congress added new rules to the law that excluded most student debt from that relief. Anyone aiming to discharge student debt in bankruptcy must prove that repaying it would constitute an “undue hardship." Lawmakers never defined an undue hardship, though, so it has been left to the courts to decide just how destitute someone needs to be in order to qualify for relief.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Unfortunately congress does this a lot. They write ambiguous laws with phrases like "undue hardship" and expect the courts to define such terms.!!!

 

[bodecea]

The constitution says courts cannot write laws. Courts should tell the deadbeat plaintiff - if you don't like this law, then go to congress and get it changed.

This Court Case Could Unshackle Americans From Student Debt

oct 8 2015 When Robert Murphy said he wanted to try to get his student loan debt erased, the person overseeing his bankruptcy case told him he had a better shot of getting hit by a bus. Now he’s closer than ever to victory.

The unemployed 65-year-old, acting as his own attorney, spent three years appealing his way to the Boston federal court that is now considering his case. A win for Murphy would relieve him of hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt—and could fundamentally change the way U.S. bankruptcy courts handle borrowers who can't repay college loans.

At the center of Murphy’s battle are federal rules that make it nearly impossible for borrowers to get rid of student loans. Most consumer debt goes away in bankruptcy, which was designed to give Americans and companies a fresh start. But in the 1970s, Congress added new rules to the law that excluded most student debt from that relief. Anyone aiming to discharge student debt in bankruptcy must prove that repaying it would constitute an “undue hardship." Lawmakers never defined an undue hardship, though, so it has been left to the courts to decide just how destitute someone needs to be in order to qualify for relief.

Same advice I give to all whining about PA laws.

 

[Moonglow]

He evidently has money for an attorney...Pay your bill, it's the honorable thing to do....All he had to do was pay for ten years and the govt. would have given him what he wanted.....

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Most of these deadbeats t have plenty of money to pay their debt. But as long as there is all this talk about bailouts for student loans, they'd be fools to make any payments.

 

[Moonglow]

Most of these deadbeats t have plenty of money to pay their debt. But as long as there is all this talk about bailouts for student loans, they'd be fools to make any payments.

The interest only accumulates and doubles the debt...

 

[ShootSpeeders]

He evidently has money for an attorney...Pay your bill, it's the honorable thing to do....All he had to do was pay for ten years and the govt. would have given him what he wanted.....

Article says he's acting as his own attorney.

 

[Moonglow]

He evidently has money for an attorney...Pay your bill, it's the honorable thing to do....All he had to do was pay for ten years and the govt. would have given him what he wanted.....

Article says he's acting as his own attorney.

So that's his problem, he's an attorney?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

From 2001 through 2007, Murphy took out several Parent PLUS student loans -- federal debt parents can use to finance their kids' education -- to send his three children to college. After accruing interest, the bill ballooned to $246,500.

I can't believe that. Most state schools have tuition of around $7000 a year. Did the fool send his kids to a private college.?? If he did, that's idiotic and i say hell with him.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Most of these deadbeats t have plenty of money to pay their debt. But as long as there is all this talk about bailouts for student loans, they'd be fools to make any payments.

The interest only accumulates and doubles the debt...

That's why there should be no bailouts and obama should make that absolutely clear. Let congress rewrite the law so these debtors have some access to bankruptcy same as other debtors.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Tax debts are also not dischargable thru bankruptcy. People need to remember that. And tax debts are NOT debts you contracted for!!!. Really unfair that tax debtors cannot use bankruptcy.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Pay or we pull your teeth.

 

[bucs90]

Unfortunately congress does this a lot. They write ambiguous laws with phrases like "undue hardship" and expect the courts to define such terms.!!!

The courts are going to rule an "undue hardship" is being raised as a fucking liberal. Being a liberal in itself will be a hardship haha and they'll all demand to be allowed to be career college students. Just live 70 years in various college dorms and getting free room and meals.

 

[Iron Head]

The US Supreme Court define "undue hardship" as not being able to maintain a minimal standard of living if the student loan debt is not discharged. It is a factual question, and most, if not all, federal circuit courts have elaborated on this. In addition, if the loan is guaranteed by the federal government and is being serviced by the government by some entity like Sallie Mae, then there is an administrative discharge if you can show undue hardship, which virtually mirrors the Grogan standard.

Basically the guy is trying to overturn the Grogan holding whereby the Supreme Court would rule that the lower court's interpretation of the Grogan undue hardship standard is too strict, to the point of exceeding the parameters contemplated by the Grogan decision.

This is all that is going on here.

 

[Iron Head]

Tax debts are also not dischargable thru bankruptcy. People need to remember that. And tax debts are NOT debts you contracted for!!!. Really unfair that tax debtors cannot use bankruptcy.

Income tax debts ARE dischargeable in bankruptcy if the tax liability is more than 3 years old at the time the bankruptcy petition, the returns for the year in question has been filed, and those returns have been filed at least 2 years prior to the bankruptcy filing. The same applies to state income taxes. Payroll taxes are never dischargeable.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The US Supreme Court define "undue hardship" as not being able to maintain a minimal standard of living if the student loan debt is not discharged. It is a factual question, and most, if not all, federal circuit courts have elaborated on this. In addition, if the loan is guaranteed by the federal government and is being serviced by the government by some entity like Sallie Mae, then there is an administrative discharge if you can show undue hardship, which virtually mirrors the Grogan standard.

Basically the guy is trying to overturn the Grogan holding whereby the Supreme Court would rule that the lower court's interpretation of the Grogan undue hardship standard is too strict, to the point of exceeding the parameters contemplated by the Grogan decision.

This is all that is going on here.

Courts should not rule on this at all. They should refuse to hear such cases until congress writes a law clarifying what they meant by "undue hardship". Letting the courts interpret the phrase amounts to courts writing laws.

 

[Iron Head]

The US Supreme Court define "undue hardship" as not being able to maintain a minimal standard of living if the student loan debt is not discharged. It is a factual question, and most, if not all, federal circuit courts have elaborated on this. In addition, if the loan is guaranteed by the federal government and is being serviced by the government by some entity like Sallie Mae, then there is an administrative discharge if you can show undue hardship, which virtually mirrors the Grogan standard.

Basically the guy is trying to overturn the Grogan holding whereby the Supreme Court would rule that the lower court's interpretation of the Grogan undue hardship standard is too strict, to the point of exceeding the parameters contemplated by the Grogan decision.

This is all that is going on here.

Courts should not rule on this at all. They should refuse to hear such cases until congress writes a law clarifying what they meant by "undue hardship". Letting the courts interpret the phrase amounts to courts writing laws.

There is something to your point. There is also varying degrees of filling in the gray areas. I tend to agree with Justice Scalia that you have to interpret a statute according to its plain meaning. If that does not resolve the issue then Congress needs to clarify it, not the courts. In no area is this more important than statutory law.

People seem to forget, and leftists ignore, the fact that the real power in our republic is found in Article II of the federal constitution. These are the legislative powers that are reserved for the people, not a tyrannical president or panel of judges.

 

[northpolarbear]

Well, I don't have any debt in anything. Sexual assault, credit or whatever. No debt. By the laws here.

 

[Iron Head]

Well, I don't have any debt in anything. Sexual assault, credit or whatever. No debt. By the laws here.

Why in the hell do you cite sexual assault in relation to a thread about civil debt, and then qualify it by saying "by the laws here". What, are you a serial rapist in Canada or elsewhere, fuck breath?

Your comment is creepy as hell. I can tell from other comments that you are not a troll, which increases the creepy factor by 10.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Courts should not rule on this at all. They should refuse to hear such cases until congress writes a law clarifying what they meant by "undue hardship". Letting the courts interpret the phrase amounts to courts writing laws.

There is something to your point. There is also varying degrees of filling in the gray areas. I tend to agree with Justice Scalia that you have to interpret a statute according to its plain meaning. If that does not resolve the issue then Congress needs to clarify it, not the courts.

Something??? My point is 110,216.3 percent correct THINK