Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • McDay v. PA Higher Education, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order that affirmed the bankruptcy court's order partially discharging Selena McDay's student loan debt. The bankruptcy and district courts found that some of McDay's student loan debt was dischargeable. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's order for the reasons stated in that order. The appeals were brought by Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency and HEMAR Insurance Corporation, who argued the student loan debt should not have been partially discharged.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-07-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-1311

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order that affirmed the bankruptcy court's order partially discharging Selena McDay's student loan debt. The bankruptcy and district courts found that some of McDay's student loan debt was dischargeable. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's order for the reasons stated in that order. The appeals were brought by Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency and HEMAR Insurance Corporation, who argued the student loan debt should not have been partially discharged.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    15 views3 pages

    McDay v. PA Higher Education, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order that affirmed the bankruptcy court's order partially discharging Selena McDay's student loan debt. The bankruptcy and district courts found that some of McDay's student loan debt was dischargeable. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's order for the reasons stated in that order. The appeals were brought by Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency and HEMAR Insurance Corporation, who argued the student loan debt should not have been partially discharged.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-1311

    SELENA J. MCDAY,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    PENNSYLVANIA
    HIGHER
    EDUCATION
    ASSISTANCE
    AGENCY;
    HEMAR,
    Insurance
    Corporation
    of
    America,
    Defendants - Appellants,
    and
    SALLIE MAE SERVICING CORPORATION; MELLON BANK,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-04-2630-AW; BK-01-25283)

    Submitted:

    June 28, 2006

    Decided:

    July 20, 2006

    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas J. Sippel, GILL & SIPPEL, Rockville, Maryland, for


    Appellants. Blake M. Fetrow, LEGAL AID BUREAU, INC., Riverdale,
    Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency and HEMAR
    Insurance Corporation of America appeal the district courts order
    affirming

    the

    bankruptcy

    courts

    order

    declaring

    dischargeable the student loan debt of Selena McDay.


    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    partially
    We have

    Accordingly, we

    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    See McDay v.

    Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Agency, Nos. CA-04-2630-AW; BK-01-25283


    (D. Md. Feb. 9, 2005).

    We have previously granted the Appellees

    motion to submit this case on the briefs and therefore dispense


    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 3 -

    You might also like