In re: Chelsea Ann Conway Debtor ------------------------------ Chelsea Ann Conway v. National Collegiate Trust

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-3104
___________________________
In re: Chelsea Ann Conway
lllllllllllllllllllllDebtor
------------------------------
Chelsea Ann Conway
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
National Collegiate Trust
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
First Marblehead Corp., Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
____________
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit
____________
Submitted: June 4, 2014
Filed: June 9, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
National Collegiate Trust (NCT) appeals from the judgment of the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel (BAP) reversing the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that debtor
Chelsea Conway had reasonably reliable future financial resources with which to pay
her entire student loan debt to NTC. Reviewing the Bankruptcy Court’s finding of
facts for clear error and its conclusion of law de novo, the BAP determined that
excepting from discharge all of Conway’s obligations to NTC would impose an
“undue hardship” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). But the BAP remanded for a separate
“undue hardship” discharge analysis of each of Conway’s fifteen individual debts to
NCT. We have independently reviewed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision, applying
the same standard of review as the BAP. See Walker v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp.
(In re Walker), 650 F.3d 1227, 1230 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). We affirm
for the reasons stated by the BAP. See Conway v. Nat’l Collegiate Trust (In re
Conway), 495 B.R. 416 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2013). In addition, contrary to NCT’s
arguments on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion in the BAP’s decision to reach
the merits of the Bankruptcy Court’s decision despite immaterial deficiencies in the
record on appeal, see Wilson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Wilson), 402 B.R. 66,
69–70 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2009), no contravention of congressional intent with regard
to the discharge analysis, and no abuse of discretion in the decision to remand for
further proceedings. Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --