Opinion
21-40006-KKS Adv. 21-04003-KKS
08-29-2022
IN RE: ANNELI MARIAH NYSTRAND, Debtor. v. KINGDOM OF SWEDEN, Defendant. ANNELI MARIAH NYSTRAND Plaintiff,
Anneli Mariah Nystrand Plaintiff
Anneli Mariah Nystrand Plaintiff
ORDER GRANTING KINGDOM OF SWEDEN'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 110)
KAREN K. SPECIE CHIEF U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING is before the Court on Kingdom of Sweden's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment ("Summary Judgment Motion," ECF No. 110), Plaintiff's response, and Kingdom of Sweden's reply to Plaintiff's response. For the reasons stated below, the Court has determined that no hearing on the Summary Judgment Motion is necessary, and that motion is due to be granted
Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant Kingdom of Sweden's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 122.
Kingdom of Sweden's Reply to Anneli Nystrand's Response in Opposition to Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 122), ECF No. 126.
In this adversary proceeding, Plaintiff, Anneli Mariah Nystrand ("Nystrand"), seeks a hardship discharge of the student loan debt due to Defendant, Kingdom of Sweden ("Sweden"), pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). This student loan debt was reduced to judgment in November of 2020.
Summary Final Judgment, Kingdom of Sweden v. Anneli Maria Baldwin [Nystrand], No. 2018-CA-2077 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Oct. 2, 2020). See Declaration of Boel Magnusson in support of Summary Judgment Motion, ECF No. 110-1, Ex. A, ¶8 ("Declaration").
Nystrand filed an amended complaint in this action on April 19, 2021. Sweden filed an answer and affirmative defenses on May 19, 2021, and amended affirmative defenses on October 25, 2021. The Court stayed this adversary proceeding and sent the parties to mediation.Mediation was unsuccessful. Sweden filed the instant Summary Judgment Motion on July 1, 2022.
Amended Complaint to Determine Dischargeability of Student Loan Debts Based on Undue Hardship, ECF No. 3.
Kingdom of Sweden's Amended Answer to Adversary Complaint (D.E. 3), ECF No. 14; Kingdom of Sweden's Amended Affirmative Defenses, ECF No. 28.
Order Granting, in Part, Plaintiff's Motion for the Court to Schedule Mediation and Appoint Mediator (ECF No. 79), ECF No. 84.
Mediation Disposition Report, ECF No. 109.
ECF No. 110.
The test in the Eleventh Circuit for whether a debtor, here Plaintiff, is entitled to a hardship discharge is that originally stated by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 1987 in Brunner v. N.Y. State Higher Educ. Serv. Corp. The Brunner test, as it is commonly called, has three prongs, or factors:
Brunner v. N.Y. State Higher Educ. Serv. Corp., 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987); see Graddy v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Graddy), 852 Fed.Appx. 509, 512 (11th Cir. 2021) ("[T]his Circuit adopted the test from Brunner . . . for determining whether a debtor has proved undue hardship." (citing In re Cox, 338 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (11th Cir. 2003))).
(1) that the debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a "minimal" standard of living for herself and her dependents if forced to repay the loans; (2) that additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans; and (3) that the debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans.
Brunner, 831 F.2d at 396 (emphasis added).
In the Eleventh Circuit, a debtor must "prove by a preponderance of the evidence that all three Brunner factors are met."
Graddy, 852 Fed.Appx. at 512 (citing Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Mosley (In re Mosley), 494 F.3d 1320, 1324 (11th Cir. 2007)).
Sweden seeks summary judgment against Nystrand on the basis that Nystrand does not meet the third prong of the Brunner test, which requires a debtor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she "has made good faith efforts to repay the loans." Sweden alleges, and Nystrand does not dispute, that Nystrand has never made any payment on and "never made any attempt to defer payment or enter into a modified repayment plan" of the student loan debt she owes to Sweden.Sweden filed a Declaration in support of its Summary Judgment Motion that provides factual support showing that these allegations are true.
Id. (citations omitted); see also Dennehy v. Sallie Mae (In re Dennehy), 201 B.R. 1008, 1011 (Bankr. N.D. Fla 1996).
ECF No. 110, p. 2.
Id. at Ex. A.
In response to the Summary Judgment Motion, Nystrand does not allege that she made any payments to Sweden or attempted to negotiate a different repayment plan. By so doing, Nystrand essentially admits her failure to prove the third prong of Brunner.
Rather than address the third prong of Brunner, Nystrand points out that Sweden does not address the other two (2) prongs of the Brunner test in its Summary Judgment Motion. But, as Sweden argues, because Nystrand has failed to prove the third prong of the Brunner test, it is unnecessary to address the other two prongs.
ECF No. 122, ¶ 3.
Nystrand then proceeds to address other matters. Nystrand first argues that the statute of limitations on her student loan debt due to Sweden expired before Sweden filed suit to collect that debt. But that issue was addressed by the state court before it entered the Summary Final Judgment against Nystrand. For that reason, under the Rooker- Feldman doctrine, this Court may not revisit the statute of limitations issue.
Id. at ¶¶ 4-6.
It is well-settled that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review, reverse, or invalidate a final state court decision. D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies in cases "(1) brought by state-court losers (2) complaining of injuries caused by final state-court judgements (3) rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and (4) inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." White v. Gee, Case No. 8:19-cv-0003-T-02CPT, 2019 WL 2476698, *3 (M.D. Fla. June 13, 2019) (citing May v. Morgan Cty. Ga., 878 F.3d 1001, 1004 (11th Cir. 2017)).
Nystrand then argues that Sweden has not supported the Summary Judgment Motion with adequate evidence. First, she asserts that the Declaration of Boel Magnusson in support of the Summary Judgment Motion is not based on personal knowledge of the declarant. This assertion is false. In paragraph 1 of the Declaration, the declarant states: "I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration. If called as a witness, I could competently testify as to the facts herein."
ECF No. 122, ¶ 8.
ECF No. 110-1, Ex. A, ¶ 1.
Nystrand next contends that one assertion in the Declaration is refuted by a declaration Sweden filed with the state court in 2019. But the testimony that Nystrand claims is refuted is not decisive of the third prong of Brunner. Further, the statement Nystrand wants this Court to take judicial notice of, even if admitted, does not appear to show that Nystrand made a payment to Sweden or made any effort to modify her student loan repayment obligations.
Nystrand asks this Court to take judicial notice of that declaration but has not provided a copy. Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice Re: Case Number 2018CA002077, Leon County, Florida, ECF No. 124. Although the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the declaration to which Nystrand refers was filed on the state court docket, this Court cannot take judicial notice of the contents of that declaration. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); see also Kerruish v. Essex Holdings, Inc., 777 Fed.Appx. 285, 293-94 (11th Cir. 2019) ("Judicial notice of court records is ordinarily confined to determining what happened in the course of a proceeding-when a plaintiff filed a complaint, what claims were argued and adjudicated, and so on. We have found no authority for the proposition that we may take judicial notice of an affidavit never made part of the district court record . . . ." (internal citation omitted)).
The testimony before this Court that Nystrand claims is refuted is a statement by Sweden's representative, Boel Magnusson, stating, "During my 22 years [working for Sweden], I have never heard of mistakes being found in its computer records as a result of tests or audits performed by the accounts [sic] or by the external governmental agencies." ECF No. 110-1, Ex. A, ¶ 3. According to Nystrand, a different Sweden employee declared to the state court in 2019 that Sweden misplaced "a couple of Debt Obligations submitted by Nystrand . . . ." ECF No. 122, ¶ 7. Because Nystrand lifts the cited quote out of context and has not provided a copy of any such declaration, this Court can only guess at what is meant by the term "Debt Obligations" or why the fact that Sweden may have misplaced such would be significant. Further, because the state court entered judgment against Nystrand after the referenced declaration was filed, the state court had that declaration before it (assuming it was admitted into evidence) before issuing the Final Judgment.
Finally, Nystrand tries to excuse her failure to make any payments to Sweden by claiming that Sweden never contacted her about repayment options, rather than vice versa. She then explains that she has paid 100% of her student loan obligations to the United States Department of Education ("DOE") because DOE made repayment efforts simple and accessible.
ECF No. 122, ¶ 9.
Id. at ¶ 10.
Nothing Nystrand alleges in the Amended Complaint or in opposition to the Summary Judgment Motion addresses, or meets her burden of proving, that she has met the third prong of the Brunner test.
In her response to the Summary Judgment Motion, Nystrand alleges that she has recently been diagnosed with various forms of cancer. Id. at ¶ 12. Assuming this representation to be true, this development is indeed unfortunate. But this information is not relevant to the issue before the Court, which is whether Nystrand has met her burden to prove that she has met all three (3) prongs of the Brunner test, specifically including the third prong, which is that she made good faith efforts to repay her student loan debt to Sweden.
For the reasons stated, it is
ORDERED:
1. Kingdom of Sweden's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 110) is GRANTED.
2. The hearing scheduled for October 4, 2022, is CANCELED.
DONE and ORDERED.