Hard cases, they say, make bad law. The case of Laura Susan Reynolds, just brought to the Supreme Court on a money-lender's petition for appeal, is about as hard a case as you're likely to find.
Judge John R. Gibson spelled out the facts last October in his opinion for the 8th Circuit. Much condensed, the story begins when Mrs. Reynolds began suffering from depressive symptoms in junior high school. The symptoms worsened during her college years. She dropped out of a foreign study program, but kept struggling toward a degree. Despite persistent depression and panic attacks, she was able to graduate cum laude from Claremont McKenna College in California.
She pushed on to law school in Michigan. Serious physical and mental problems continued, but she nevertheless was graduated in 1995 in the middle of her class. After passing her bar exams, she tried doggedly to find employment as a lawyer. Nothing worked. At last, five years ago, she settled into a permanent job as secretary-receptionist for a roofing contractor in Minnesota. There she now earns about $30,000 a year. Her husband earns $29,000 driving a school bus. They have no children.
At the time she left law school, Mrs. Reynolds had piled up more than $140,000 in unpaid student loans. For a few months she made token payments. At last these stopped. In June 2000 she filed a petition for bankruptcy. She volunteered to pay $100 a month toward her debts. The bankruptcy court held that she reasonably could be ordered to pay much more, but eventually the court discharged her entire debt.
Some of her creditors dropped out, but the Educational Credit Management Corp., her principal creditor, refused to go along. Under the Bankruptcy Code, student loans must be repaid unless repayment "will impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor's dependents." How undue is "undue"? A three-judge panel, voting 2-1, found her hardship sufficiently undue, and the 8th Circuit, voting en banc, denied rehearing 6-5. Now the parties wait to learn if the high court will take the case.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, attorney Curtis P. Zahn of St. Paul, Minn., argues persuasively that what is known as the "Brunner test" of 1987 requires her to make at least some regular payments unless she can prove "a persistent inability to maintain a minimal standard of living." Nine of the 10 federal circuits that have passed on such cases have applied the Brunner test. The 8th Circuit, in contrast, since 2003 has applied a test predicated instead upon the "totality of debtor circumstances."
Forget A Federal Marriage Amendment and Go For Religious Freedom Acts In All 50 States | John Hawkins