Conway v. National Collegiate Trust (In re Conway), 542 B.R. 855

Conway filed for bankruptcy and sought discharge of student loans owed to National Collegiate Trust (NCT); earlier appeal reversed a blanket nondischargeability ruling and remanded for a year-long income/expense assessment.
On remand the bankruptcy court reviewed Conway’s income and expenses for Nov. 2013–Oct. 2014 (most recent 12-month period with complete records).
The court found Conway had $170.30 monthly disposable income and could make payments on 4 of NCT’s loans without undue hardship; 11 loans were held dischargeable.
Conway submitted updated figures after the remand hearing (including a December 2014 layoff, anticipated higher health-insurance and loan payments) and asked the court to alter or amend its judgment.
The bankruptcy court denied the motion, concluding post-October 2014 changes were speculative or not part of the complete 12-month record used; Conway appealed that denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by using Oct. 2014 cut-off rather than later events	Conway: post-cutoff layoff and expense increases made disposable income negative; all loans dischargeable	NCT: court properly used most recent full 12-month period with complete records; later changes speculative	Court: Affirmed — using Nov.2013–Oct.2014 was proper; post-cutoff changes were speculative and did not show clear error
Whether increased federal loan payments should alter findings	Conway: higher federal payments reduce disposable income and ability to pay NCT	NCT: increases were not sufficiently substantiated for the covered 12-month period	Court: Denied — court could decline to base decision on speculative future increases
Whether increased health-insurance expense should change outcome	Conway: higher premiums after cutoff reduce available income	NCT: anticipated increases were not proven by complete records	Court: Denied — court noted anticipated increases but reasonably relied on documented 12-month figures
Whether court erred reducing monthly miscellaneous expenses	Conway: misc. expense previously allowed ($97) wrongly reduced to $0 or $80	NCT: challenged some updated expenses as speculative or one-time	Court: Denied — factual adjustments not clearly erroneous given record; no abuse of discretion

Suggs v. Regency Fin’l Corp. (In re Suggs), 377 B.R. 198 (8th Cir. BAP 2007) (standard of review for motions to alter or amend bankruptcy judgments)
Farmland Indus., Inc. (In re Farmland Indus., Inc.), 397 F.3d 647 (8th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion review explained)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (clear-error standard for factual findings)
Reynolds (In re Reynolds), 425 F.3d 526 (8th Cir. 2005) (dischargeability of student loans is a legal question; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
Long (In re Long), 322 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2003) (same)
Walker (In re Walker), 427 B.R. 471 (8th Cir. BAP 2010) (post-discharge undue-hardship determinations rely on facts at time of trial)
Bender (In re Bender), 368 F.3d 846 (8th Cir. 2004) (undue-hardship determination is discretionary)
Woodcock v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (In re Woodcock), 326 B.R. 441 (8th Cir. BAP 2005) (courts should make a forward-looking, reliable assessment and avoid endless re-review)