Haugen v. North Dakota, State of

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
State of North Dakota, d/b/a Bank of )
North Dakota by and through Student )
Loans of North Dakota, )
)
Appellant, ) ORDER AFFIRMING
) BANKRUPTCY COURT
vs. )
) Case No. 1:22-cv-179
Christine Marie Haugen, )
)
Appellee. )
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Appellant’s appeal from the decision of the United States
Bankruptcy Court. The State of North Dakota, d/b/a Bank of North Dakota by and through Student
Loans of North Dakota (“North Dakota”), contends the Bankruptcy Court erred in discharging
Appellee Christine Haugen’s (“Haugen” or “Debtor”) student loan debt under 11 U.S.C. §
523(a)(8). See Doc. No. 5. For the reasons set forth below, the Court affirms the decision of the
Bankruptcy Court.
I. BACKGROUND
Haugen filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on
September 7, 2021, and received a general discharge on December 21, 2021. On October 8, 2021,
Haugen filed an adversary proceeding requesting the Bankruptcy Court discharge a student loan
debt she owes to North Dakota. The Bankruptcy Court held a trial on August 16, 2022. On October
3, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered a “Memorandum and Order” (Doc. No. 1-1) and
“Judgment” (Doc. No. 1-2) discharging Haugen’s student loan debt owed to North Dakota. North
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 1 of 15

2
Dakota timely filed a notice of appeal. See Doc. No. 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).
Christine Haugen is currently 40 years old and is in good health. She has been married to
Travis Haugen for 15 years. Christine and Travis Haugen have three minor children. Their
youngest child was born in January 2022, after the Debtor filed for bankruptcy. Travis Haugen did
not file for bankruptcy.
Haugen attended Covenant Bible College, where she earned a Certificate in Biblical
Studies in 2003. She then attended Oak Hills Christian College, where she studied youth ministry
and left the program before graduating. In 2006 Haugen earned an Associate Degree in Legal
Administration from Aakers Business College, now known as Rasmussen University, in Fargo,
North Dakota.
From 2012 to 2018 Haugen worked at Home Depot. On June 20, 2018, she obtained
employment at Integreon Management Solutions (“Integreon”). Haugen initially worked as a
workflow coordinator earning $15 per hour. Her duties included communicating directly with
clients and coordinating the tasks of specialists/operators. She then accepted a less demanding
position as a specialist/operator at Integreon making $12 per hour. According to Haugen, she
changed positions because she found the workflow coordinator position to be too stressful. Haugen
currently works approximately 40 hours per week. As a specialist/operator she processes and
completes legal documents for clients. Haugen works from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. At the trial
Haugen testified that she earns $13.13 per hour at the regular pay rate until 7:00 p.m., when her
wage increases to the evening pay rate of $14.73 per hour. Haugen works overtime when it is
available. Travis Haugen works in customer service at U.S. Bank Service Center, where he has
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 2 of 15

3
worked for approximately 16 years. Travis Haugen works from 5:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Working
different shifts allows the Haugen family to avoid daycare costs and share one vehicle.
On September 20, 2007, Haugen entered into a student loan agreement with North Dakota
to serve as a cosigner on her mother, Debra Jean Marchus’s (“Marchus”) student loan. On
September 26, 2007, North Dakota approved the student loan and subsequently dispersed $14,535
to Marchus. Marchus did not make any payments on the loan while BND administered it. North
Dakota’s typical loan repayment period is 10 years, but a variety of payment options were available
to Marchus, including: extended term repayment, consolidation, deferment, forbearance, and
interest-only payments. The loan was in forbearance for 22 months and Marchus deferred
payments for a total of 68 months. North Dakota sent Haugen annual cosigner account summaries
that provided the cosigned balance and status of the loan. In or about August 2018, North Dakota
found Marchus in default. After the loan was in default, Marchus attempted to negotiate a payment
plan or an additional forbearance, but North Dakota refused. In January 2020, North Dakota
initiated a lawsuit against Marchus and Haugen seeking a judgment on the student loan debt. On
June 18, 2020, Marchus petitioned for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 7. She also filed an
adversary proceeding seeking to discharge her student loan debt to North Dakota. On May 18,
2021, the Bankruptcy Court concluded the student loan debt imposed an undue hardship on
Marchus and discharged it. Consequently, the obligation to pay the cosigned student loan now
rests solely with Haugen.
The current principal balance of the loan is $38,490.30. Haugen has not made any payments
on the loan. She is not eligible for forbearance, deferment, or income-contingent repayment
options because the loan is in default. Haugen is only eligible for the standard 10-year repayment
plan. Her monthly payments to North Dakota would be approximately $450 per month. During the
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 3 of 15

4
adversary proceeding, Haugen made settlement offers that North Dakota did not accept. Through
the adversary proceeding, Haugen only seeks discharge of the loan she cosigned for Marchus. She
does not seek discharge of student loans she borrowed for her own education. She makes monthly
payments of $89 on her own student loans through an income-based repayment plan.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a bankruptcy court’s judgment is appealed to the district court, the district court acts
as an appellate court. Fix v. First State Bank of Roscoe, 559 F.3d 803, 808 (8th Cir. 2009).
Findings of fact are evaluated for clear error, and all legal determinations made by the bankruptcy
court are reviewed de novo. Id. Section 523(a)(8) the Bankruptcy Code specifies that student loans
will not be discharged unless failure to discharge would constitute an “undue hardship” on the
debtor or the debtor’s dependents. In re Reynolds, 425 F.3d 526 (8th Cir. 2005). The debtor has
the burden of establishing undue hardship by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Walker, 650
F.3d 1227, 1230 (8th Cir. 2011). To assess whether the debtor has met this burden, the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals applies a totality-of-circumstances test, under which it considers: “(1) the
debtor's past, present, and reasonably reliable future financial resources; (2) a calculation of the
reasonable living expenses of the debtor and her dependents; and (3) any other relevant facts and
circumstances surrounding the particular bankruptcy case.” Id. (citations omitted).
The determination of whether declining to discharge a debtor’s student loan debt would
pose an undue hardship is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo. Reynolds, 425 F.3d at
531. The subsidiary findings of fact on which the legal conclusion is based are reviewed for clear
error. Id. A bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are not to be upset unless, after reviewing the entire
record, the district court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 4 of 15

5
made.” Walker, 650 F.3d at 1230 (8th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). “This standard requires a
reviewing court to conclude the trial court made a definite mistake based upon the record as a
whole. The trial court’s findings of fact are given deference and when more than one interpretation
of evidence is possible there is no clear error.” In re Piccinino, 577 B.R. 560, 563 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.
2017) (citations omitted).
III. LEGAL DISCUSSION
North Dakota argues the Bankruptcy Court erred in determining Haugen met her burden to
prove repaying the student loan debt to North Dakota would result in an undue hardship under 11
U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Haugen argues the Bankruptcy Court properly determined she met her burden
of proof of undue hardship and her loans are subject to discharge.
A. PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY RELIABLE FUTURE FINANCIAL
RESOURCES
1. INCOME
Haugen is employed full time as an operator/specialist with Integreon, working
approximately 40 hours per week. At the time of trial, she worked from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
The Bankruptcy Court found Haugen earns a wage of $13.13 per hour at the regular pay rate until
7:00 p.m., when her wage increase to an evening pay rate of $14.73 per hour. See Doc. No. 1-1, p.
3. The Bankruptcy Court acknowledged this wage reflects an increase Haugen received a few
months prior to its order. The Bankruptcy Court stated that Haugen reported an individual monthly
net income of $2,137.92 on her Schedule I (Doc. No. 4-13, p. 18). See Doc. No. 1-1, p. 4. When
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 5 of 15

6
analyzing Haugen’s past, present, and reasonably reliable future financial resources, the
Bankruptcy Court stated, “Debtor earns $2,137.92 per month in net income.” Id. at 18.
North Dakota argues the Bankruptcy Court committed clear error by accepting an income
figure that was patently false because Haugen’s wage increased since she filed her Schedule I.
North Dakota argues the Bankruptcy Court should have concluded Haugen’s monthly income is
$2,524.06, based on her paystub from August 10, 2022, which was her most recent paystub before
the Bankruptcy Court. Haugen’s paystub from August 10, 2022, reveals her net pay for the two-
week pay period was $1,262.03, which would amount to $2,524.06 of monthly income. See Doc.
No. 4-16, p. 1. North Dakota’s contention fails to take into consideration Haugen’s other recent
paystubs, which were lower than the paystub from August 10, 2022, despite Haugen receiving the
wage increase. For example, Haugen’s July 25, 2022, paystub reveals net pay of $971.91, which
would amount to $1,943.82 of monthly income. Not only is this figure less than the $2,524.06
figure suggested by North Dakota, it is also less than the $2,137.92 figure used by the Bankruptcy
Court. Similarly, Haugen’s net income totaled $1,120.54 on her paystub from July 8, 2022, which
would create a monthly income of $2,241.08. This figure is lower than the figure North Dakota
maintains the Bankruptcy Court should have used. Accordingly, only using Haugen’s most recent
paycheck to determine her net monthly income would be an inaccurate representation of her
current financial resources. Even if the Bankruptcy Court used the figure suggested by North
Dakota, Haugen’s income would still not enable her to make $450 monthly payments. The
difference between the figure proposed by North Dakota ($2,524.06) and the figure the Bankruptcy
Court used ($2,137.92) is only $386.14.
North Dakota cites to Walker in support of its argument that the Bankruptcy Court’s figure
was patently false. In Walker, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held,
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 6 of 15

7
We recognize ‘A court may not engage in speculation when determining net income
and reasonable and necessary living expenses.’ Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v.
Jesperson (In re Jesperson), 571 F.3d 775, 780 (8th Cir.2009). In Jesperson, the
bankruptcy court credited testimony from the debtor regarding his federal income
tax obligation that was patently false, which had the effect of understating the
debtor's income.
Walker, 650 F.3d at 1233. In Walker, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained the facts in
Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Jesperson, 571 F.3d 775 (8th Cir.2009) did not rise to the level of
reasonably reliable facts and circumstances and could not serve as the basis of the bankruptcy
court’s legal conclusions. This case is distinguishable from Jesperson. Whereas the bankruptcy
court in Jesperson based its conclusion on patently false testimony, the Bankruptcy Court in the
present case based the income figure on truthful information provided by Haugen in her Schedule
I. The Bankruptcy Court did not base its decision on deliberately false information. Further, the
Bankruptcy Court acknowledged Haugen’s increased wage in its factual findings. The income
figure used by the Bankruptcy Court was based on reasonably reliable facts and circumstances.
Therefore, the Bankruptcy Court did not err in its findings regarding Haugen’s income.
2. UNDEREMPLOYMENT
North Dakota argues the Debtor is voluntarily underemployed and the Bankruptcy Court
erred when finding her inability to pay is not due to self-imposed limitations. The Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeal has held, “A debtor is not entitled to an undue hardship discharge of student loan
debts when [her] current income is the result of self-imposed limitations, rather than lack of job
skills, and [she] has not made payments on [her] student loan debt despite the ability to do so.”
Jesperson, 571 F.3d at 782. Cases finding underemployment as a form of self-imposed limitation
typically involve debtors that chose to work part-time or chose work that did not utilize their
education. See, e.g., Piccinino, 577 B.R. at 565-66 (affirming the bankruptcy court’s finding that
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 7 of 15

8
the debtor’s underemployment was, to an extent, self-imposed when she did not work for two years
and then worked part-time with no evidence that she considered full-time employment as an
option); In re Nielsen, 518 B.R. 529, 532-35 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2014), aff'd, 622 F. App'x 594 (8th
Cir. 2015) (affirming the bankruptcy court’s finding that despite some limitations out of the
debtor’s control, on balance the restrictions on the debtor’s ability to seek and obtain employment
were largely self-imposed when she was unemployed and failed to look for full-time employment
for four years prior to the filing of her bankruptcy petition).
Here, the Bankruptcy Court distinguished this case from other cases finding
underemployment by explaining, “This is not a case where Debtor works part time when she is
capable of full-time employment or where evidence shows that she is qualified for higher-paying
jobs that are available to her. Debtor obtained an associate degree in legal administration and is
using this education as a full-time operator/specialist.” See Doc. No. 1-1, p. 32. In the Debtor’s
current role, she uses her education to complete legal processing tasks. The Bankruptcy Court
properly found and considered in its analysis that “any purported lack of ambition is offset by
transportation and daycare savings as well as her husband’s contribution to the family finances on
which she relies to pay her student loan debts and all the other reasonable and necessary expenses.”
See Doc. No. 1-1, p. 33. Although North Dakota correctly states that the Debtor did not directly
testify that the Haugen family’s lack of a second vehicle or their need for childcare limits her
employment options, the Bankruptcy Court’s findings were common-sense inferences. The record
supports the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that the Debtor is not underemployed and her lack
of disposable income sufficient to pay her debt is not due to self-imposed limitations.
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 8 of 15

9
3. FUTURE FINANCIAL RESOURCES
“[T]he undue hardship analysis is dynamic in that it is forward-looking.” In re
Cumberworth, 347 B.R. 652, 661 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2006). The Court is “obligated to consider not
just a snapshot of her current situation but her likely future income based upon her education and
employment history.” In re Brown, 378 B.R. 623, 627 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2007). However, the
Court must not “substitute assumptions or speculation for reasonably reliable facts.” In re Conway,
495 B.R. 416, 422 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2013), aff'd, 559 F. App'x 610 (8th Cir. 2014)
North Dakota argues Haugen’s reasonably reliable future financial resources support the
conclusion that repayment of the student loan debt would not impose an undue burden on her or
her dependents. North Dakota also argues the Bankruptcy Court improperly considered only a
snapshot of the Debtor’s financial situation at the time of trial. Contrary to North Dakota’s
contention, the Bankruptcy Court thoroughly considered Haugen’s future financial resources. See
Doc. No. 1-1, pp. 18-19, 32-33. It is important to note that when the Bankruptcy Court considered
Haugen’s reasonably reliable future financial resources, it did not find that the debtor’s income is
unlikely to increase. Rather, the Bankruptcy Court indicated the Debtor’s income is unlikely to
increase enough to make a $450 monthly payment to North Dakota while paying all reasonable
and necessary expenses. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court held that no evidence was received
that the Debtor is qualified for suitable jobs available in her community where the employer would
either 1) allow her to work from home on a modified work schedule that allows her to care for her
children with a salary sufficient to make a $450 monthly student loan payment or 2) pay her a
salary high enough to allow the family to buy another vehicle, pay daycare expenses, and make a
$450 monthly payment if she is not allowed to work from home. See Doc. No. 1-1, p. 32. The
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 9 of 15

10
Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court’s findings and well-reasoned analysis as to Haugen’s
reasonably reliably future financial resources and finds no error.
Haugen’s past and present financial resources have been and are presently insufficient to
service the entire debt owed to North Dakota. Haugen’s reasonably reliable future financial
resources are modest and insufficient to meet the monthly payment obligation to North Dakota.
The Court concludes the Bankruptcy Court did not err in its factual findings as to Haugen’s past,
present, and reasonably reliable future financial resources.
B. REASONABLE AND NECESSARY LIVING EXPENSES
“To be reasonable and necessary, an expense must be modest and commensurate with the
debtor’s resources.” Jesperson, 571 F.3d at 781 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“A debtor is entitled to sufficient financial resources to satisfy needs for food, shelter, clothing and
medical treatment to maintain a minimum standard of living.” Piccinino, 577 B.R. at 565.
North Dakota makes several unsubstantiated statements regarding the reasonableness of
Haugen’s expenses. Rather than explaining how the Bankruptcy Court erred in determining certain
expenses were unreasonable, at times North Dakota simply points to Haugen’s burden to prove
the expenses were reasonable. North Dakota also argues the Bankruptcy Court improperly shifted
the burden. The Bankruptcy Court stated,
North Dakota’s suggestion that Debtor reduce her food budget by $330 a month is
also troubling because North Dakota points to no evidentiary or legal support for
this proposal. It simply speculates that a 50% reduction in restaurant food purchases
is appropriate, while reminding the Court that it ‘may not engage in speculation
when determining net income and reasonable and necessary living expenses.’
See Doc. No 1-1, p.22. This case is analogous to Walker, 650 F.3d 1234 (8th Cir. 2011), where the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated, “[a]side from challenging specific expenses as
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 10 of 15

11
unreasonable, [the creditor] did not rebut the findings of fact on which this calculation is based,
nor did it identify a scenario under which [the debtor] could realistically increase the household's
income.” 650 F.3d at 1234. North Dakota argues that Haugen “has substantial room to tighten her
budget and she has resources available to service her student loan debt.” See Doc. No. 5, p. 27.
However, North Dakota has not identified how Haugen could realistically increase her income and
tighten her budget enough to make payments on the student loans while maintaining a minimal
standard of living.
Similarly, North Dakota did not cite any binding authority that stands for its contention
that a minimal standard of living requires a debtor to forgo all recreation and entertainment
expenses. In Walker, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that though it may question the
wisdom of particular purchases at issue, on the basis of the record before it, the debtor could not
afford to make payments on the student loans and still maintain a minimal standard of living. 650
F.3d at 1234. Expenses must be considered “in light of the overall financial and interpersonal
context” of the debtor’s household because “fairness and equity require each undue hardship case
to be examined on the unique facts and circumstances that surround the particular bankruptcy.” Id.
at 1235.
Haugen’s expenses must be considered in light of her overall financial context. The
Bankruptcy Court acknowledged that though some expenses may toe the line of reasonable and
necessary, the Debtor’s frugality in other areas is relevant to the analysis of her standard of living.
Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court noted that the Debtor and her husband maintain full-time jobs,
live in a three-bedroom apartment with three children, take no vacations apart from visiting their
parents, share a 2007 Chevrolet Uplander, maintain staggered work schedules that allow the family
to avoid daycare expenses, buy clothes from secondhand stores, anticipate increased medical
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 11 of 15

12
expenses due to their oldest daughter’s anxiety, and anticipate an increase in costs arising from
their youngest child, whom was born after the Debtor filed for bankruptcy. Similar to Walker,
while the Court may question the wisdom of some of the Debtor’s entertainment and food
expenses, based on the record as a whole, the Debtor cannot afford to make payments on the
student loans and still maintain a minimal standard of living.
Additionally, North Dakota argues the Bankruptcy Court engaged in speculation because
the Debtor testified that she used IRS standards to budget for food and housekeeping,
miscellaneous expenses, and personal care products and services on her Schedule J. While these
estimates are perhaps speculative, the Bankruptcy Court based its factual findings on testimony,
bank statements, and other evidence presented at trial. The Bankruptcy Court stated it “adjusted
the Haugens’ monthly expenses reported on Schedule J to reflect evidence regarding routine
expenses received at trial.” See Doc. No. 1-1, p. 20. Thus, the Bankruptcy Court did not engage in
speculation in determining the Debtor’s reasonable and necessary living expenses. Similarly,
North Dakota points to several incidents where it believes Haugen fell short of her burden by
providing rough estimates. While the Bankruptcy Court acknowledged that Haugen’s testimony
was sometimes vague and occasionally inconsistent with the bank statements received as evidence,
the Bankruptcy Court found that Haugen’s bank statements revealed that she underestimated
expenses for food, housekeeping supplies, personal care, and miscellaneous expenses by more than
$450 per month. Albeit not through Haugen’s testimony, the Bankruptcy Court ultimately
determined Haugen met her burden through the evidence she presented at trial. The record supports
the Bankruptcy Court’s findings as to Haugen’s reasonable and necessary expenses. The findings
are not clearly erroneous and thus cannot be set aside.
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 12 of 15

13
C. OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
This factor permits evaluation of a wide range of facts and issues that may be relevant to
determining undue hardship, including:
(1) total present and future incapacity to pay debts for reasons not within the
control of the debtor; (2) whether the debtor has made a good faith effort to
negotiate a deferment or forbearance of payment; (3) whether the hardship will be
long-term; (4) whether the debtor has made payments on the student loan; (5)
whether there is permanent or long-term disability of the debtor; (6) the ability of
the debtor to obtain gainful employment in the area of the study; (7) whether the
debtor has made a good faith effort to maximize income and minimize expenses;
(8) whether the dominant purpose of the bankruptcy petition was to discharge the
student loan; and (9) the ratio of student loan debt to total indebtedness.
Piccinino, 577 B.R. at 566 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2017). These factors do not provide an exclusive list
of items that courts may consideration and courts are not required to address each and every one
in a particular case. Id. “The purpose of this final inquiry allows a court to consider any other
relevant information that would be persuasive to overcome the income and expense analysis of
undue hardship under the first two factors of the totality of the circumstances test.” In re Fern, 563
B.R. 1, 5 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2017).
When evaluating other relevant factors and circumstances in this case, the Bankruptcy
Court noted that this adversary proceeding is “unlike the typical section 523(a)(8) case” because
the Debtor is not seeking to discharge a student loan she borrowed to attend college. See Doc. No.
1-1, p.28. Rather, she is seeking to discharge a cosigned loan disbursed to her mother for her
mother’s education. The Bankruptcy Court acknowledged that as a result, some of the factors
typically considered in a 523(a)(8) analysis are not easily applicable in this case. For example, the
Bankruptcy Court noted that the factors relating to student loan repayment and the Debtor’s intent
to discharge debt in part weigh in favor of discharge and in part weigh against discharge. Haugen
did not make payments to North Dakota toward the cosigned loan for her mother and conceded
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 13 of 15

14
that she petitioned for bankruptcy relief because she could not afford to pay the debt arising from
the cosigned loan. However, Haugen is not seeking to discharge the student loans she borrowed
for her own education. She makes a monthly income-based payment of $89 on her own student
loans. The Bankruptcy Court also determined Haugen’s failure to make payments or negotiate a
deferment or forbearance with North Dakota and her decision to petition for bankruptcy relief to
discharge the cosigned loan are mitigated by 1) her mother’s representation that she was taking
care of the debt and 2) her status as a cosigner1. Among other considerations, the Bankruptcy Court
also determined Haugen’s failure to make payments while the loan was in deferment or
forbearance and when the loan was delinquent did not demonstrate bad faith. The Court finds no
clear error in the Bankruptcy Court’s consideration of other relevant factors and circumstances.
As the Bankruptcy Court acknowledged, the limited trial evidence in this case presented it
with a difficult decision. Despite the limitation presented, the Bankruptcy Court made sound
factual findings without engaging in speculation. Based on the record as a whole, Haugen’s past,
present, and reasonably reliable future financial resources are insufficient to meet the monthly
obligation to North Dakota while maintaining a minimum standard of living. The Court finds
Haugen met her burden of establishing undue hardship by a preponderance of the evidence.
Therefore, the Court affirms the Bankruptcy Court’s discharge of Haugen’s student loan debt owed
to North Dakota.
1 In considering the Debtor’s cosigner status as a mitigating factor, the Bankruptcy Court cited to In re Kinney, 593
B.R. 618, 624 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2018), where the Bankruptcy Court for the North District of Iowa held that
although the debtor’s status as a consigner has “no legal bearing on this Court's undue hardship determination, it
becomes relevant factually. Courts must generally consider the educational benefit obtained and the effect on the
debtor's future earning capacity. In this case, Debtor as a cosigner received no educational benefit. This lack of
educational benefit thus cuts against prohibiting discharge of the loan.”
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 14 of 15

15
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the entire record, the parties’ briefs, and relevant case
law. The Court finds the Bankruptcy Court’s findings are supported by more than sufficient
evidence and North Dakota has failed to demonstrate any error that would merit reversal. For the
reasons set forth above, the Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court’s decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of March, 2024.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:22-cv-00179-DLH-CRH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 15 of 15