Discuss the three factors the court examines to determine whether to discharge the student loans.

Bryan Anthony Looper (Debtor) had over $300,000 in student loans that were used to finance his education at Mercer University where he obtained an A.B., an M.B.A, and another unspecified graduate degree as well as a large number of courses toward his J.D. degree. He did not make payments on these student loans.

In 1996, he was elected assessor for Putnam County, Tennessee, a position he held for two years and four months. He was then convicted of the first-degree murder of state senator Tommy Burks. He exhausted all of his appeals and is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Looper has one dependent, a son born in August 1998. The circuit court for Putnam County, Tennessee, ordered Looper to pay child support of $161.00 per month plus $7,254.20 in medical expenses. Looper did not make any of the court-ordered child support payments and was in arrears by more than $23,515.00.

Looper asked to have his student loans discharged on

the basis of his hardship.

JUDICIAL OPINION

STAIR, Bankruptcy Judge…The first factor before the court requires the court to assess the Debtor’s standard of living and determine whether he can afford to repay his loans. “The essence of the minimal standard of living requirement” is that a debtor, after providing for his or her basic needs, may not allocate any of his or her financial resources to the detriment of … student loan creditor(s). In order to meet the minimal standard of living factor, debtors are required to “make some major sacrifices, both personal and financial, with respect to their current style of living.” This does not mean, however, that debtors must “live in abject poverty.” A debtor earning a modest income and living on an unbalanced budget with no unnecessary or frivolous expenses may be discharged based upon an undue hardship.

The proof shows that the Debtor has earned $1,321.60 since being incarcerated in 2000, an average of $188.80 per year. Nevertheless, the proof also shows that the Debtor does not have actual living expenses. His meals, clothing, shelter, basic medical care, dental care, and eye care are provided by the State of Tennessee. The Debtor asserts that the Tennessee Department of Corrections can assess him tens of thousands of dollars every year for health care costs, housing, board, and medical costs. However, these “facts” were disputed by ECMC, and the Debtor failed to offer into evidence any proof of their validity, and the court considers these statements to be unsubstantiated argument. Moreover, while the Debtor submitted evidence that commissary items must be purchased and argues that he requires many of these items in order to alleviate his various medical conditions, these items appear to be “extras” rather than “essentials.”

The Debtor also argues that he has substantial litigation and copy expenses, requiring approximately $3,300.00 per month for his expert witness, legal copies, postage, notary fees, deposition expenses, attorneys, legal books, and research and support services. The question is whether the Debtor can meet a minimal standard of living, which includes only those expenses that are necessary for meeting the Debtor’s basic needs. Based upon the proof presented, the court finds that the Debtor maintains a minimal standard of living. He earns minimal funds; however, his basic living needs are furnished by the State of Tennessee.

The second factor to be considered is the existence of “additional circumstances” to indicate that the Debtor’s current financial circumstances are beyond his control and will continue into the future. The Bankruptcy Code does not provide a specific list of “additional circumstances” to be considered to indicate the persistence of a debtor’s state of affairs. “Such circumstances must be indicative of a ‘certainty ……………….