The question as to whether the private student loans were incurred “solely to pay qualified education expenses” under 26 U.S.C. Section 221(d)(1) is where these cases are won or lost.
In Conti v. Arrowood Indemnity Co., No. 20-1172 (6th Cir. 12/14/20), the Court affirmed a bankruptcy court’s judgment against the borrower, and refused to consider arguments that were not raised at the trial court level.
Why is Conti decision important? Two reasons. First, it put a lot of emphasis on the purpose of the loans – as opposed to their actual use. Court vary on this approach and it may depend upon where you live as to what approach is used by your courts. Second, the Sixth Circuit emphasized the need to fully flesh out all available legal arguments and facts at the trial court level.