The use of the undue hardship standard in the reaffirmation agreement provision suggests that the undue hardship analysis should primarily focus on the current financial circumstances of a debtor in the Bankruptcy Code. As acquiesced by scholars, the reaffirmation contract supply is truly the only other place undue difficulty seems within the Bankruptcy Code bes 59 See quick for Professor Rafael Pardo as Amicus Curiae, p. 11–13, Murphy v. U.S. Dept. Of Educ., No. 14-1691 (1st Cir. Oct. 25, 2016). An agreement that makes the debtor legally bound to repay a debt that would otherwise be discharged is enforceable only if a variety of requirements meant to safeguard the debtor’s fresh start are all satisfied under 11 U.S.C. § 524, the provision governing reaffirmation agreements. 60 11 U.S.C. § 524(m)(1).
Among these requirements includes language that the contract must “not impose an undue difficulty on the debtor or perhaps a reliant for the debtor. ” 61 Id. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and customer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) clarified the “undue difficulty” standard into the reaffirmation contract context by prov 62 Id. If the presumption arises, it could be rebutted only when the debtor has the capacity to 63 Id. Properly, the provision is targeted on the debtor’s ability to repay a financial obligation decided by the debtor’s disposable income, which eventually steps the result that the reaffirmation agreement could have regarding the future livelihood associated with debtor.
Although the Bankruptcy Code itself sheds some light on just what the undue hardship standard means, it really is worth searching beyond it to other conditions of federal code that apply the undue difficulty standard to discern a more coherent way of interpreting and applying the conventional for purposes of § 523(a)(8) into the Bankruptcy Code. By analyzing the undue hardship standard within the context of general public security advantages, work discrimination, pupil school funding eligibility, taxation re payment extensions, social protection advantages, and finding in civil litigation, typical threads occur that declare that an assessment of great faith or conduct generally speaking in an undue difficulty analysis is misguided. In reality, other law that is federal strong help when it comes to summary that Congress meant undue difficulty to spotlight the effect or impact an alleged difficulty is wearing an individual as opposed to assessing the cause of the hardship, whether a person has made a beneficial faith work in order to avoid their difficulty, and whether or not the difficulty will continue.
B. Public Protection Officer Death Benefits
With regards to cons 64 See Brief for Professor Rafael Pardo as Amicus Curiae, p. 11–13, Murphy v. U.S. Dept. Of Educ., No. 14-1691 (1st Cir. Oct. 25, 2016). A prime exemplory case of this might be based in the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act, which established a course to prov 65 34 U.S.C. § 10281(m). The supply, 34 U.S.C. § m that is 10281(, which offers the phrase undue difficulty, concerns collection actions of advantages which are disbursed pursuant to a statute enacted retroactively or in error, and reads in whole the following: “The Bureau may suspend or end collection action on a quantity disbursed pursuant up to a statute enacted retroactively or perhaps disbursed in mistake under subsection (a) or (c) of the section, where such collection will be not practical, or would cause undue difficulty up to a debtor who acted in good faith. ” 66 Id. An undue hardship serves as a defense against collection actions for benefits disbursed in error or benefits disbursed under a statute enacted retroactively in other words.
Undue difficulty in this context is not interpreted in the event law, regulations, or gu 67 Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001). A statute should not be interpreted in a way that renders a word or phrase superfluous when such an interpretation can be avo 68 United States v. E-Gold, Ltd., 550 F. Supp in other words. 2d 82, 93 (D.D.C. 2008). The latter half of § 10281(m) using the clause “acted in good faith” would be insignificant, if not wholly superfluous, since the undue hardship analysis would already include an inquiry into the good faith of the debtor if the undue hardship standard were to include an inquiry into good faith. The Supreme Court has explained, it really is “reluctant to take care of terms that are statutory surplusage” in almost any environment. ” 69 Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. At 174; see Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore., 515 U.S. 687, 698 (1995); see also Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 140 (1994) (“judges should think twice to take care of terms that are statutory surplusage in just about any setting). This exemplory case of statutory construction that produces an express difference between undue difficulty and good faith provides strong help for the summary that a meaning for undue difficulty into the bankruptcy context must not add facets that evaluate good faith efforts or debtor’s pre-bankruptcy conduct.
C. Employment Discrimination
The application of the undue difficulty standard as a protection for an employer whom cannot make rooms for a member of staff also supports the final outcome that the undue difficulty analysis should concentrate on an indiv 70 See Gregory S. Crespi, Efficiency Rejected: Evaluating Undue Hardship Claims under the Us americans with Disabilities Act, 26 Tulsa L. R. 1, 2–3 (1990). Especially, the statute provides that discriminating:
Against https://speedyloan.net/installment-loans-il an indiv that is qualified 71 42 U.S. C § 12112.