Garrett v. Nebraska Higher Education Loan Program, Inc. (In Re Garrett) , 64 F. App'x 739 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 3 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
In re: CURTIS WESLEY GARRETT;
JANET LAVERNE GARRETT,
Debtors.
No. 02-6304
______________________________ (BAP No. WO-02-27)
(BAP)
CURTIS WESLEY GARRETT;
JANET LAVERNE GARRETT,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NEBRASKA HIGHER EDUCATION
LOAN PROGRAM, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , HENRY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Curtis Wesley and Janet Laverne Garrett (Debtors) appeal from the decision
of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) holding that the bankruptcy court
properly denied them a discharge of their student loan debts because they failed to
satisfy the “undue hardship” exception under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). We exercise
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) and affirm.
The BAP opinion fully sets out the relevant facts and issues raised in this
appeal and we need not repeat them here. “In our review of BAP decisions, we
independently review the bankruptcy court decision.” In re Albrecht , 233 F.3d
1258, 1260 (10th Cir. 2000). We apply a de novo standard of review to its
conclusions of law. Id. ; In re Woodcock , 45 F. 3d 363, 367 (10th Cir. 1995)
(noting that we review de novo the question whether loans are dischargeable
under the undue hardship exception). But the issue raised here challenges the
bankruptcy court’s findings as to the Debtors’ circumstances. “Unless the
bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous, we must embrace them.”
Turney v. FDIC , 18 F.3d 865, 868 (10th Cir. 1994).
The parties did not question the applicable law below. Debtors continue to
assert that the bankruptcy court’s factual finding that the Debtors’ monthly
income is sufficient to enable them to maintain a minimal standard of living as
-2-
well as to repay the $44,500 student-loan debt is an abuse of discretion because
some evidence in the record supports their claim that they are not able to maintain
a minimal standard of living and repay the debt. But that assertion does not state
the proper standard of review. As the BAP pointed out, the bankruptcy court’s
finding must be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. That means that we must
accept the bankruptcy court’s determination unless it is “completely devoid of
minimum evidentiary support displaying some hue of credibility, or [] bears no
rational relationship to the supportive evidentiary data.” Gillman v. Scientific
Res. Prods., Inc. (In re Mama D’Angelo, Inc.) , 55 F.3d 552, 555 (10th Cir. 1995)
(quotations omitted).
We have carefully considered the record, the applicable law, and the
arguments of the parties. For substantially the same reasons stated in the BAP
opinion filed August 21, 2002, we conclude that the bankruptcy court’s findings
of fact are not clearly erroneous and that its decision must be upheld.
The judgment of the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-3-