Why Your Judge Matters in Student Loan Bankruptcy

Most borrowers know it’s incredibly difficult to discharge student loans in bankruptcy. You’ve probably heard it described as nearly impossible. But here’s something few people talk about: your outcome depends heavily on the judge assigned to your case, even if your situation looks similar to someone else’s.

Nearly every bankruptcy judge uses the same legal standard — the Brunner test — to decide whether your loans cause “undue hardship.” Yet, two judges can look at almost identical situations and reach opposite conclusions. One borrower leaves court debt-free, while another walks away still chained to their loans.

Why does this happen? Because judges interpret the same rules differently.

Some judges act as strict gatekeepers, treating student loan discharges as rare exceptions. Others take a practical, real-world approach, carefully examining a borrower’s daily struggles, expenses, and repayment ability.

Take the cases of James Rosen and Belinda Garcia. Both filed bankruptcy to discharge student loans. But their judges saw their stories — and hardships — through completely different lenses.

James Rosen: A Lifetime of Payments, but Still Drowning

James Rosen was 79, retired, and in chronic pain. He’d endured multiple heart and back surgeries, had lost most of his hearing, and struggled to move freely.

For decades, Rosen faithfully made student loan payments totaling nearly $38,000 — more than half of what he originally borrowed. Yet his loan balance climbed relentlessly, overtaken by interest.

Now surviving on just Social Security and a small pension, Rosen faced a stark choice: continue paying his loans or sacrifice his basic needs, including medical care and mobility accommodations. He presented extensive documentation detailing these realities, hoping a judge would see his struggles clearly.

Belinda Garcia: Educated, Employable, and Facing Skepticism

Belinda Garcia’s situation was different. Middle-aged (53), highly educated, and employable, Garcia held a master’s degree in Human Resources.

Her financial story was complicated.

Garcia had voluntarily left multiple jobs without clear reasons, made minimal loan payments, mostly to defer rather than reduce her debt, and maintained discretionary spending, including a monthly entertainment budget.

Even though the Department of Education supported forgiving her loans, Garcia’s case hinged on how a judge would interpret her financial choices and life circumstances.

The results couldn’t have been more different.

Judge Rebecca Connolly discharged Rosen’s debt completely. Judge Michael Parker denied Garcia’s request, leaving her loans intact.

James Rosen and Belinda Garcia presented their judges with different financial situations and life stories. But what truly drove their contrasting outcomes wasn’t simply their differences — it was how each judge interpreted the details of their hardship through the lens of the Brunner test.

Let’s unpack exactly how Judges Connolly and Parker evaluated Rosen and Garcia across the Brunner test’s three core factors: the borrower’s minimal standard of living, the persistence of their hardship, and their good faith efforts to repay the loans.

• Minimal standard of living: Could Rosen and Garcia repay their loans without sacrificing basic needs?

• Persistent circumstances: Were their hardships temporary setbacks or genuinely long-term struggles?

• Good faith efforts: Did they each make sincere attempts to manage and repay their student loan debts?

Minimal Standard of Living

Could Rosen and Garcia repay their loans without sacrificing basic needs?

Judge Connolly recognized that Rosen had just $27 left each month after covering essential expenses.

She acknowledged that the amount couldn’t realistically cover necessary medical care or daily needs, especially considering his severe physical limitations.

Rather than viewing every expense skeptically, Connolly carefully validated Rosen’s medical savings and specialized housing expenses, concluding that even minimal loan payments would deeply disrupt his life.

Judge Parker saw Garcia’s situation differently.

He pointed out that Garcia had discretionary spending, notably a $200 monthly entertainment budget. By trimming expenses, Parker reasoned, Garcia could manage a small monthly repayment.

He emphasized affordability through careful budgeting, concluding Garcia could maintain a basic living standard while still repaying her loans under an income-driven repayment plan.

Persistent Circumstances

Were Rosen’s and Garcia’s hardships temporary setbacks or genuinely long-term struggles?

Judge Connolly examined Rosen’s age and chronic medical conditions, explicitly recognizing his declining health and financial stability as permanent.

Connolly interpreted the “persistent circumstances” standard practically, not as a requirement to predict the future with absolute certainty, but as a realistic assessment of Rosen’s inability to improve his situation given his advanced age and deteriorating health.

Judge Parker took a stricter stance.

He focused closely on Garcia’s professional credentials and employability, seeing her hardship as largely temporary and driven by voluntary decisions. Parker particularly criticized her vague explanations for leaving multiple jobs, suggesting her difficulties were avoidable or temporary rather than persistent.

Good Faith Repayment Efforts

Did Rosen and Garcia sincerely try to repay their loans?

Judge Connolly valued Rosen’s decades of steady payments, totaling nearly two-thirds of his original debt.

Rosen had consolidated his loans, enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan, and communicated regularly with his loan servicer.

Connolly viewed this consistent, documented effort as strong evidence of good faith, even though interest had continually eroded his progress.

Judge Parker interpreted Garcia’s actions differently.

He criticized Garcia for repeatedly deferring payments rather than actively reducing her debt.

Parker also viewed Garcia’s choice not to enforce court-ordered child support payments critically, labeling her repayment efforts as minimal, avoidable, and insufficient evidence of sincere, meaningful attempts to manage her loans.

Another critical difference between Judges Connolly and Parker was how each defined “repayment” itself — a difference that directly shaped Rosen and Garcia’s outcomes.

Judge Connolly approached repayment realistically, asking a straightforward question: Could Rosen genuinely repay the debt within his lifetime?

For Connolly, simply covering interest month after month wasn’t enough.

She stated, “Making an interest payment is not a means to ‘repay’ the debt unless the interest payment is accompanied by a principal payment.”

She even calculated that at Rosen’s current payment level, it would take more than two decades — well beyond his likely remaining lifespan — to repay the principal fully. To her, true repayment required meaningful progress, not perpetual debt.

Judge Parker, however, took a narrower approach. He closely focused on Garcia’s short-term ability to afford minimal income-driven repayments.

Parker explicitly pointed out that Garcia could manage small monthly payments — such as the $56 per month under the SAVE plan — if she trimmed discretionary spending. Even if these payments barely touched her loan’s principal, Parker considered this manageable monthly amount as clear evidence Garcia didn’t face genuine undue hardship.

This distinction matters deeply.

Connolly’s definition frees borrowers trapped in debts they realistically cannot repay, ending years of stress, uncertainty, and ongoing paperwork required by federal repayment plans.

Parker’s definition, by contrast, essentially locks borrowers into a long-term financial limbo, forced to navigate an ever-changing landscape of federal repayment programs, constantly proving eligibility, submitting income documentation, and living indefinitely with the stress of debt that might never meaningfully shrink.

In other words, one judge asks, “Can you truly repay this debt?” The other simply asks, “Can you manage the monthly payment?”

The reason two judges reach opposite conclusions about similar cases isn’t complicated: judges bring their own views and biases to the courtroom.

Judges like Rebecca Connolly see their role as offering relief when someone genuinely can’t pay. They evaluate your health, age, finances, and repayment efforts practically, giving weight to real-life details that show genuine hardship.

Judges like Michael Parker act as stricter gatekeepers. They’re protective of Congress’s intent to keep student loan discharges rare. They look skeptically at your financial choices, your explanations, and whether you’ve genuinely done everything possible to repay.

The point is, your outcome isn’t determined by your story alone. It depends heavily on the judge deciding your case. That’s why understanding how your judge thinks — and carefully preparing your case accordingly — makes such a big difference.

This is where a knowledgeable student loan bankruptcy lawyer becomes a must. A good attorney knows the judges in your district, anticipates their skepticism, and helps you build the clearest possible case for why your loans should be discharged.

You might assume that if your creditor — like the Department of Education — agrees your student loans should be forgiven, the judge will automatically grant the discharge. But as we saw with Belinda Garcia, that’s not how it works.

In Garcia’s case, the Department of Education explicitly agreed her loans should be discharged. But Judge Parker saw it differently. He pointed to a Supreme Court ruling called Espinosa, which requires judges to independently evaluate student loan hardship claims. Parker interpreted that responsibility strictly, closely examining Garcia’s choices and finances and ultimately concluding she didn’t meet the Brunner standard.

Judge Connolly in Rosen’s case had the same responsibility, but she approached it differently. She also independently reviewed the facts, but did so pragmatically. Instead of looking for reasons to say no, Connolly looked closely at Rosen’s genuine struggles and repayment efforts, using the creditor’s agreement to reinforce her own independent conclusion that Rosen’s circumstances justified relief.

In short, a creditor’s agreement certainly helps your case. But the judge always has the final word. Even when everyone — including your creditor — thinks your loans should be forgiven, judges can still say no if they don’t clearly see the hardship.

That’s why documenting your hardship thoroughly matters, regardless of what your creditor says. Your attorney should anticipate judicial skepticism and build a case that stands up on its own, no matter who’s on the other side.

Belinda Garcia faced a challenging situation from the start, given her relative youth, strong educational background, and employment potential.

But her lawyer might’ve increased her chances of success by anticipating Judge Parker’s stricter interpretation of the Brunner test — and addressing his concerns head-on in her complaint.

Specifically, Garcia’s case could have been strengthened by clearly documenting:

• Detailed explanations for each of her job changes, connecting those decisions to unavoidable circumstances beyond her control (family responsibilities, health issues, documented caregiving demands).

• Evidence of diligent job searches to demonstrate a real effort to secure stable, higher-paying employment, countering the judge’s criticism of her voluntary underemployment.

• Clear justification of all budget items, especially those the judge might deem discretionary, such as entertainment expenses. Showing a genuine effort to minimize discretionary spending is essential to avoid skepticism.

• Documented reasons for not enforcing child support, supported by practical evidence (for example, proof of safety concerns or realistic limitations).

Of course, even perfect documentation doesn’t guarantee a favorable outcome, especially in front of stricter judges like Parker. But clear, detailed preparation tailored to your judge’s known skepticism can greatly improve your chances of success.

If you’re preparing your own student loan adversary proceeding, make sure your complaint explicitly addresses the judge’s likely concerns. For detailed guidance, explore our resources on how to draft effective adversary complaints:

• How to File an Adversary Proceeding for Student Loans

• Complaint to Determine Dischargeability of Student Loan Debt

• What Is Undue Hardship for Student Loans?

As we’ve seen, judges approach student loan bankruptcy cases differently — even when borrowers face similar struggles. Success hinges on clearly documenting your hardship and anticipating how your judge might view those details.

Our student loan bankruptcy attorneys file cases nationwide, helping borrowers discharge federal and private student loans.

We carefully analyze your situation, crafting your case to address skepticism from judges like Parker while clearly meeting the practical standards of judges like Connolly.

If you’re considering bankruptcy to relieve your student loan burden, talk with one of our experienced attorneys to see exactly how we can help.