The result away from disallowance below § 502(b)(2) “would be to guarantee one to loan providers aside from [the new creditor holding the latest education loan] located their fair share of one’s home
nine Select § 346.step one [ Student education loans ] § 158.2 Student loans. Look for, elizabeth.g., Leeper v. Pennsylvania Large Educ. Advice Agencies, forty two F.three-dimensional 98 (3d Cir. 1995) (Applying Bruning v. All of us, 376 You.S. 358, 84 S. Ct. 906, 11 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1964), unmatured postpetition interest to your an excellent nondischargeable education loan is not allowable and you may survives launch during the a chapter thirteen case.); For the re also Hamilton, 179 B.R. 749 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995) (Harmony out of education loan could be nondischargeable during the conclusion from money below Part 13 plan notwithstanding you to Department away from Degree failed so you can punctual file a proof of claim while the borrower registered a proof claim with respect to the latest Department inside a keen number disputed by the Institution.); Ridder v. High Lakes Highest Educ. Corp. (In the lso are Ridder), 171 B.R. 345, 346–47 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1994) (“Regardless of if states to own postpetition appeal was disallowed during case of bankruptcy, immediately after bankruptcy proceeding the fresh proprietor from a good nondischargeable financial obligation will get assemble out-of the fresh new borrower in person. Bruning v. You, 376 U.S. 358, 84 S. Ct. 906, 11 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1964). . . . Given that financial obligation was not discharged, Higher Ponds get assemble the latest postpetition attention out of [this new debtor] actually. . . . That Great Lakes’ allege to own postpetition desire could have come disallowed doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not postpetition appeal try dischargeable.”); For the re Shelbayah, 165 B.R. 332 (Bankr. Letter.D. Ga. 1994) (Unmatured postpetition attract on the an educatonal loan is not a permitted allege significantly less than § 502(b)(2), and you may such focus will continue to accrue when you look at the Part thirteen case. ).
Most of the unmatured postpetition desire gets an equivalent nondischargeable character since the the root education loan not as much as § 1328(a)
10 Select lower than contained in this part to discover §§ 155.dos [ Long-Name Expense ] § 88.nine Enough time-Identity Bills, 159.step 1 [ A suggestion: Much easier Statutes to own Class out-of Unsecured States ] § An offer: Convenient Legislation to have Group from Unsecured States and you may 346.1 [ Student education loans ] § 158.dos Figuratively speaking. Select, e.grams., In the re also Williams, 253 B.Roentgen. 220, 232 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2000) (“That it courtroom does not prove Chapter thirteen arrangements giving to possess the newest fee of great interest in order to student loan financial institutions, although not some other unsecured loan providers.”); From inside the lso are Shelbayah, 165 B.Roentgen. 332, 337 (Bankr. Letter.D. Ga. 1994) (Unmatured postpetition focus into a student-based loan isn’t deductible in the a chapter 13 circumstances around Lowell payday loan online § 502(b)(2), such as for example attract will continue to accrue in Section thirteen circumstances, in addition to accruing notice has got the exact same nondischargeable character while the fundamental education loan significantly less than § 1328(a). ”). Accord Leeper v. Pennsylvania Large Educ. Direction Institution, forty two F.3d 98 (three-dimensional Cir. 1995); Inside lso are Hamilton, 179 B.R. 749 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995); Ridder v. High Ponds Higher Educ. Corp. (Within the re Ridder), 171 B.R. 345 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1994).
eleven For the lso are Boggan, 125 B.R. 533 (Bankr. N.D. Unwell. 1991). Agreement From inside the re also Gregg, 179 B.Roentgen. 828, 830 (Bankr. Age.D. Tex. 1995) (Debtor normally individually categorize around three figuratively speaking for payment entirely in which almost every other unsecured claim proprietors could well be reduced only .74%. “Every college loans in this instance try nondischargeable around 11 You.S.C. § 523. Ergo, a separate group for those claims does not unfairly discriminate against another unsecured creditors.”). Discover together with Inside re Dillon-Bader, 131 B.Roentgen. 463 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1991) (In the framework of great-trust objection so you can confirmation, this is simply not incorrect to have a chapter 13 borrower so you can by themselves identify Heal financing to have a hundred% fee when you’re using almost every other unsecured claim proprietors 10% given that Restore fund must be paid-in full pursuant to help you 42 U.S.C. § 294f(g).).