Bankruptcy Court Case Study

In mid-1999, a student by the name of B.J. Durham transferred schools as a result of his mother’s divorce and financial struggles. B.J. was a cross-country/track star at his previous school, Park Tudor Private High School, and was rumored to be moving for athletically-motivated reasons. Because of the hearsay, B.J. was not granted full-eligibility by the IHSAA but partial. B.J., the plaintiff in this case, was also denied access to the Hardship Exception which would’ve granted him athletic eligibility in full. B.J. and his family took their case to court. The court issued a permanent injunction against the IHSAA’s decision, to which the IHSAA later appealed. The court stood on their decision,

Introduction: 5 a.m. The alarm clock rings, on a normal day you would dread waking up so early. But today, is not your normal average day. Monday, August 21st, 2017, is the beginning of your first day of a new journey of college as a freshman; the nerves of the unknown lingers on as you sat in the classroom, awaiting your professor arrival. Suddenly, the door swung open and a tall, muscular, Caucasian male walked in, commanding the class attention by his demeanor. The nervousness intensifies as he proceeded to call on the attendance. This is it people! the moment everyone, including your family, have been waiting for; first-generation of your lineage to attend college. Name by name each student signified their attendance by raising their right arm when called upon, but, there’s a problem, your name was not called on. What? How can it be? There’s no way! you are overcome with complete and absolute shock; realizing you’ve been dropped from your classes due to financial aid issue. To continue enrolling, you would have to pay out of pocket. The excitement that was there before, no longer remains. Countless number of young adults are overwhelmed with the reality of college and paying for an education. For many students, each year, they are the recipient of such a catastrophic experience. Unfortunately, I was the victim of this heart-rending incident; imagine a society where financial aid and student loans did not exist, but instead, the necessity of these financial programs would diminish because college tuition would be free.

The first strength that the CNM Financial Aid Office has is related to inventory two. As stated by NASPA, (n.d.), “Good practice in student affairs helps develop coherent values and ethical standards” (p.6). As a two-year community college, the standards set by the CNM FAO fall in-line with the federal guidelines, which entail apply ethical standards to their decision. This is important, especially to those decisions that require staff to make professional judgments, such as standard academic policy. This falls in line with one of the seven values “essential to the profession” (Schuh, Jones, & Harper, 2011, p. 82). The value being justice, in which the professional judgment requires the “upholding of moral and legal principles” (Schuh et al., 2011, p.

The Plaintiff filed suit on April 7, 2015, in Livingston Parish for a 2004 loan made to Mr. Hollis thru the CFS Private Education Undergraduate Loan Program by Charter One Bank, N.A. for $26,484.00 with a “Deferral Period Margin of 4.85, Repayment Period Margin of 4.85” and a Loan Origination Fee Percentage of 9.5. Mr. Hollis is enrolled FULLTIME AS A DOCTORAL CANDIDATE at Louisiana State University IN THE Department of _________________. At the beginning of each of the Fall and Spring semesters from 2010 to 2012, Mr. Hollis forwarded deferment forms for Privately Insured Loans to the American Education Services. On April 28, 2015, Jeremy Nusloch an attorney at the firm of Couch, Conville & Blitt received notice of Mr. Hollis fulltime enrollment at LSU; however, they refuse to dismiss the case when the loan should be in deferment. Thus, Couch, Conville & Blitt continue to prosecute the claim

During October 2016, Luis Sanchez Platt College Riverside Admissions director, shredded Ms. Johnson’s 2016 - 2017 Bachelors Studies enrollment agreement documents. In violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1232g § 99.1099.12 Schools may not destroy records if request for access is pending.

Brett J. Kitson, 341 Fed. Appx. 234. in connection to the matter of Josh's lie will help decide whether or not this lie will set in motion 11 U.S.C.S §727(a), and whether or not Josh's dismissal will be rescinded. Josh lied during his his bankruptcy proceeding when he was asked whether he had ever been sued. He had, in actuality been sued years earlier for a deliberate infliction of demonstrative distress, and the event was humiliating to him and it was very awkward for him to talk about. Consequently, he lied, and said that he never been sued, The lie has no financial effect on the dilemma of Josh's bankruptcy situation. Under bankruptcy code section §727(a)(4) that forbids a discharge where the debtor, Josh knew due to his reluctance to discuss the incident, was knowingly deceitful, presented false testimony, concludes since it has no impact on this bankruptcy action, Josh did not essentially lie about being previously sued. As in Alleman v. Kitson, the court affirmed that the bankruptcy court was appropriate in their decision that since Kitson's financial documentation was immaterial the discharge was not barred under §727(a)(3). In connection, the bankruptcy court will determine that Josh was not in violation of breaking any bankruptcy

The Plaintiff filed suit on April 7, 2015, in Livingston Parish for a 2004 loan made to Mr. Hollis through the CFS Private Education Undergraduate Loan Program by Charter One Bank, N.A. for $26,484.00 with a “Deferral Period Margin of 4.85, Repayment Period Margin of 4.85” and a Loan Origination Fee Percentage of 9.5.

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Third Circuit but limited the extension of Title IX to the financial aid department of the college rather than across-campus. Yet the Court was of the opinion that receiving federal financial assistance required formal acceptance of Title IX. Further, the Court pointed out that this requirement did not violate the First Amendment rights of the College or its students, because the receipt of these funds was voluntary and officials could have ended their involvement in the program at any time.

Shahmaleki has stated that his interest is strong, but has no indicated what property interest he believes the law entitles him too or whether the University violated that interest. Furthermore, Shahmaleki does not provide, which Kansas law provides him a property interest. Under Goss, Shahmaleki must base any property interest claim in state law and he has failed to do so. The Defendants cannot find a state law that provides property interest that Shahmaleki is alleging. There is also nothing in the Graduate Student Handbook or elsewhere creating an “unqualified promise” to Shahmaleki that he had an unconditional or contract right to remain in graduate school, despite his repeated violation of the threat management policy. Count I and II of Shahmaleki’s claims rest on the assumption that he has a property interest, but he has neither shown nor does the law provide such a property interest in continued enrollment at a Kansas college. Without such an interest, both count I and II should be dismissed because they have failed to allege a sufficient claim under the

Due to the fact that the lack of Title VI funds means very little to private schools, the government agencies have very little control of discrimination in those schools. In these situations there is no action that can be taken by the government, and many schools abuse that power. Although not enforced by law, these schools must also take into consideration the needs of their students. Law alone should not dictate the need for programs to help students. At private schools the decision rests on the school officials, while at public schools the decision is made based on funds. Even without the legal punishment of discriminating, private schools must make the most ethical decision for their school. The two types of schools have the same decisions to make, with two different sets of ethics in question. At private schools, the most ethical decision may be not offering ELL classes, in order to designate those funds to a program that could benefit their students better. Overall, schools must make the decision while calling to mind the ethics of the situation and while thinking of the best solution for their

E. The Petitioner properly claimed the education credit in respect of his son, Silas, a full time enrolled student at Des

and the Advanced Placement are registered trademarks of the College Entrance Examination Board; their use does not constitute endorsement of this material by the College Board.

The plaintiff decided to retire and the college made an agreement with him to provide him certain benefits. After the plaintiff’s retirement,

First and foremost, it should be clear that “there is no fixed age in New Jersey when support stops” (New Jersey Child Support 1). Rebecca Johnson should not be forced to tackle her college tuition headfirst without parental aid, considering that she is not necessarily legally emancipated. The Newburgh factors determine how relevant Johnson’s case is to Newburgh v. Arrigo. Given the case brief, it is evident that some of these factors apply to a large extent. The case overview gives subtle hints about the background nature of Rebecca. It is important to note that Johnson had funded her studies at Middlesex County College on merit, a county college in which Johnson’s parents did not even have to pay for tuition due to scholarship. Next, it can be pointed out that the Seton Hall Tuition is nowhere close to overwhelming in comparison to other state colleges in New Jersey. Even the popular Rutgers University at Camden charges $25,710 in tuition fees, for example, which is quite a bit over the $18,000 per semester at Seton Hall University (Rutgers Admissions 4). The case overview also delineates that Rebecca Johnson is in no ideal financial position to pay this tuition herself, with credit card debt and minimal savings. It can finally be observed that Johnson lived with

Kate is the owner of a successful business, selling women’s shoes. Her business is expanding fast and she wants to upgrade her business structure to a more appropriate one. What would be your recommendation to Kate and why? What are the factors that influence you with this advice?