This recent 10th Circuit case, McDaniel v. Navient, has gotten a lot of press among those in the student loan arena when it paved the way for discharge of 200k of private student loans. But what does it really mean?
First, here is what wasn’t addressed in this case. Navient admitted that 523(a)(8) (a) (i) (government or non-profit lender/guarantor) and (b) (cost of attendance) didn’t apply. In other words, they agreed that the loans were not guaranteed by a non-profit, and were outside the cost of attendance – so neither argument would prevent a discharge.
Instead, Navient hung its hat on the loans being covered under the “educational benefit” under (a) (ii). But Navient lost. The McDaniel case is consistent with the 9th Circuit BAP case In re Kashikar as far as the determination that educational loans do not equate educational benefit under (A)(ii). The 5th Circuit in In re Crocker found the same thing last fall.