In re: ERIC NICHOLS and BONITA M. NICHOLS v. Align Western States Learning Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ERIC NICHOLS and BONITA M.
NICHOLS,
Debtors,
ERIC NICHOLS; BONITA M.
NICHOLS,
Appellants,
v.
ALIGN WESTERN STATES LEARNING
CORPORATION,
Appellee.
No. 13-60093
BAP No. 12-1305
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Jury, Taylor and Ahart, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAY 22 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Eric Nichols and Bonita M. Nichols appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the
Nichols’ adversary proceeding seeking to discharge Eric’s student loans. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. We independently review the bankruptcy court
decision, reviewing the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the code de novo and
its factual findings for clear error. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Mason (In re
Mason), 464 F.3d 878, 881 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly dismissed the Nichols’ adversary proceeding
because they failed to make a prima facie showing that excepting the debt from
discharge would constitute an undue hardship. Rifino v. United States (In re
Rifino), 245 F.3d 1083, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2001) (debtor has burden of proof on
undue hardship, and must satisfy all three elements of the Brunner test before a
discharge can be granted).
We reject the Nichols’ contentions that the bankruptcy judge was biased,
violated due process, and erred in announcing its findings of fact and conclusions
of law on the record following the close of the hearing.
AFFIRMED.
13-60093 2

-- 2 of 2 --