The headline is, like most headlines, misleading. It was not the amount of debt that mattered to the committee. The judges did not buy the debtor's argument that he was unable to make any payments. You can second guess the conclusion based on a newspaper article, but who here read the briefs and the trial transcript? That's what I thought - no one. I think the judicial system deserves the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they were wrong, but let's get all the facts before second guessing them.

Student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy unless there is "undue hardship." The courts have generally defined "undue hardship" to mean (1) you intended to pay when you incurred the debt, (2) you made best efforts to pay, and (3) you will be unable to repay in the future. This last element is very difficult to prove - unless you are elderly or disabled. Student loans have to be hard to discharge because, unlike most loans, the collateral is human capital - future earning potential. Just about everyone would file bankruptcy and discharge their student loans before they started work, if they could. I see students, who are heavily in debt, running around with Iphones glued to their heads. We need to teach young people to minimize their debts. The cost of education is so high - I feel sorry for students graduating with $100-200,000 in debt. It is going to be very hard for the next generation. As a teacher, I'd like to be able to help them see the reality of the situation.

PolarDude said:I read the article, and he had major medical problems. Couldn't walk for 6 years, and almost lost both legs thru 2 separate accidents. The article also states that they added 50% in collection fees unfairly to the balance. Unless there's more shady stuff to the story, IMO he should sue the *** out of sallie mae for adding in those extra fees.If only he could find a reputable lawyer!!

PolarDude said:I read the article, and he had major medical problems. Couldn't walk for 6 years, and almost lost both legs thru 2 separate accidents. The article also states that they added 50% in collection fees unfairly to the balance. Unless there's more shady stuff to the story, IMO he should sue the *** out of sallie mae for adding in those extra fees.

Since it is perfectly legal for Sallie Mae to add the collection fees, his case would quickly be thrown out of court. Then the judge would laugh at him for not reading the fine print on the loans, stating "I can see why you failed the bar exam so many times."

PolarDude said:I read the article, and he had major medical problems. Couldn't walk for 6 years, and almost lost both legs thru 2 separate accidents. The article also states that they added 50% in collection fees unfairly to the balance. Unless there's more shady stuff to the story, IMO he should sue the *** out of sallie mae for adding in those extra fees.

Ok, so he couldn't walk for 6 years...
26 -6(not walking)-(8 school)-(2 giving him slack) =10 years left of doing what?

Its not like he was paying his bills until he got into the accident.
A lot of people have medical problems and many of them find ways to deal with it.
Those extra fees don't really make a difference. Lets say he owed 200k and then had 200k tacked on. If you ignore the extra fee and reread the article and it says "He has 200K worth of debt that he didn't pay once for 26 years" would you suddenly feel better about his case?
What happened afterwards made no difference because he did not pay before. If he had been paying, he wouldn't have had those extra fees and he wouldn't have had to fight compound interest for all of these years. I'm willing to bet that his loan had a fairly good interest rate.

curtisekarr, lol, awesome comment!

-Greyrabbit

"In 2007, Mr. Bowman asked for an accounting of his loans, the payment deferrals he had used and his repayment options. He said he did not receive that information for nearly two years".

He rushed to the mailbox every afternoon for two years and walked back with heavy disappointment, shoulders stooped, as the information never came.....

I would not want to have him as a lawyer. Granted he could not practice the law, but he could get some practice disputing the collection process and the "unjust" fees. Instead he just sat on his a$$ for years hoping that the problem would go away. There are people on this forum without a law degree who would put him to shame.

swandown said:PolarDude said:I read the article, and he had major medical problems. Couldn't walk for 6 years, and almost lost both legs thru 2 separate accidents. The article also states that they added 50% in collection fees unfairly to the balance. Unless there's more shady stuff to the story, IMO he should sue the *** out of sallie mae for adding in those extra fees.

Since it is perfectly legal for Sallie Mae to add the collection fees, his case would quickly be thrown out of court. Then the judge would laugh at him for not reading the fine print on the loans, stating "I can see why you failed the bar exam so many times."

Not really. Generally, these types of fees would be considered liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are not allowed to serve as a penalty, but only as a proxy for actual damages that are too difficult to calculate. In other words, they have to be reasonable. A 25% "fee" for late payment is not.

chimeer said:swandown said:PolarDude said:I read the article, and he had major medical problems. Couldn't walk for 6 years, and almost lost both legs thru 2 separate accidents. The article also states that they added 50% in collection fees unfairly to the balance. Unless there's more shady stuff to the story, IMO he should sue the *** out of sallie mae for adding in those extra fees.

Since it is perfectly legal for Sallie Mae to add the collection fees, his case would quickly be thrown out of court. Then the judge would laugh at him for not reading the fine print on the loans, stating "I can see why you failed the bar exam so many times."

Except I doubt it is legal for the second collection agency to add in an extra 25% as one of the other posters mentioned. I still think he shouldn't be allowed to be a lawyer because he is definitely a deadbeat.

Agreed.

What is it that he HAS been doing in those 26 years to earn money? And why has it taken so long to catch up with him? Many, many unanswered questions here.