Educational Credit v. Steiger ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2100
In Re: JOHN LELAND STEIGER,
Debtor.
---------------------------
JOHN LELAND STEIGER,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-2107
In Re: JOHN LELAND STEIGER,
Debtor.
----------------------------
JOHN LELAND STEIGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION;
HELP SERVICE GROUP, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (CA-05-689-CMH; CA-05-690-CMH; BK-04-1286-RGM; AP-
04-13336)
Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: March 9, 2007
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reversed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Leland Steiger, Appellant/Appellee Pro Se. Troy A. Gunderman,
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, St. Paul, Minnesota;
Rand Lewis Gelber, Vienna, Virginia, for Educational Credit
Management Corporation. Thomas Kass Berger, Reston, Virginia, for
HELP Service Group, Incorporated.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Educational Credit Management Corp. (“ECMC”) and John
Steiger each appeal from the district court’s order granting a
partial discharge of Steiger’s student loans held by ECMC. In
light of this court’s opinion in In re Frushour, 433 F.3d 393 (4th
Cir. 2005), decided after the district court’s decision in this
case, we reverse. Applying Frushour, we find that Steiger has not
met the undue hardship standard for discharge of a student loan
debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) (2000). We grant Steiger’s
motion to consolidate appeals No. 05-2100 and No. 05-2107, but deny
his motion to consolidate these two appeals with appeal Nos. 05-
2104 and 05-2106, which were previously dismissed. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
REVERSED
- 3 -