ERIC NICHOLS V., No. 13-60093 (9th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: ERIC NICHOLS and BONITA M. NICHOLS, No. 13-60093 BAP No. 12-1305 Debtors, ERIC NICHOLS; BONITA M. NICHOLS, MEMORANDUM* Appellants, v. ALIGN WESTERN STATES LEARNING CORPORATION, Appellee. 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. * 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). 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. 2 13-60093

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.