Too Much And Too Little: A Bankruptcy Balancing Act

Abstract

This is a case of too much and too little. It represents one court\u27s attempt to deal with problems created by too much Congressional guidance in one area of the Bankruptcy Code and too little guidance in another. In 1994, Congress revised 11 U.S.C. § 106, adding a provision declaring that when a state files a claim in a bankruptcy proceeding, it has waived its sovereign immunity as to that claim.2 Two years later, the United States Supreme Court,.in Seminole Tribe v. Florida,3 limited Congress\u27s power to expand Article I judicial powers to the Eleventh Amendment . The In re Rose court had to determine if Congress went too far when it enacted 11 U.S.C. § 106(b). The court also had to deal with too little guidance from Congress: a debtor seeking to discharge student loans within seven years after they first came due\u27 must prove that repaying the loans would create an undue hardship. 6 Courts have struggled with defining this term, but the growing trend is to adopt the Brunner test for undue hardship.7 This case illustrates the amorphous nature of this test and how it can be used to discharge student loans