United States: The Trend Reverses: College Tuition Payments Shielded From Avoidance In Bankruptcy

Last Updated: September 6 2016
Article by Lynne Xerras

Lynne Xerras is a Partner in our Boston office.

Bankruptcy Court Rules in Favor of University in Trustee's Suit to Recover Tuition Payments, Then Certifies Trustee's Appeal to First Circuit

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • It has become increasingly common for trustees administering individual bankruptcy cases to take the position that tuition payments paid by a parent to a college on an adult child's behalf prior to the parent's bankruptcy are avoidable as "constructively fraudulent" transfers.
  • Bankruptcy courts that have considered the merits of litigation involving suit by a trustee to recover tuition payments from colleges and universities have reached disparate rulings. However, a recent ruling by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts in a pending Chapter 7 bankruptcy case has tipped the scales ever so slightly in favor of institutions of higher education.
  • In the case of In re Steven and Lori Palladino, et al., the Bankruptcy Court accepted Sacred Heart University's argument that the Palladinos' payments to the university were made in exchange for "reasonably equivalent value" because the Palladinos believed that paying for their daughter's undergraduate degree would contribute to her financial independence and, in turn, provide the parents with economic benefit.

It is the start of a new semester, and all across the country, parents are writing tuition checks to the colleges and universities that their children attend. Colleges accept the checks on behalf of the students, the tuitions are marked paid and the students are enrolled. Nothing unusual or improper about this scenario, right? Bankruptcy trustees may disagree: When the parents who wrote those checks are in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, trustees may view those checks as fraudulent transfers. (See Holland & Knight's alert, " Reversing the Trend: Will Congress Act to Except College Tuition Payments from Clawback in Bankruptcy?," July 21, 2015.)

Background

It has become increasingly common for trustees administering individual bankruptcy cases to take the position that tuition payments paid by a parent to a college on an adult child's behalf prior to the parent's bankruptcy are avoidable as "constructively fraudulent" transfers. The trustee's theory is based on the premise that, while the matriculating student receives consideration from a college or university in the form of education, the parent writing the check to that college or university receives nothing of "value" in exchange, let alone the required "reasonably equivalent value." So long as the trustee can meet his or her burden of proof on the remaining elements of the governing avoidance statute, there is risk that a defending university will be required to refund up to four years' worth of tuition and housing payments to the trustee to pay the parent/debtor's creditors, even though the debtor's child was educated at the university. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, colleges and universities have been the subject of demand or suit in more than 31 instances in the past 18 months. Most colleges and universities, however, appear to have elected to compromise the trustee's claims – and refund a portion of the tuition paid on behalf of a student – rather than bear the cost of litigating these suits in the bankruptcy courts.

Bankruptcy courts that have considered the merits of litigation involving suit by a trustee to recover tuition payments from colleges and universities have reached disparate rulings. Two bankruptcy courts have held tuition payments to be avoidable fraudulent transfers on the basis that parents without a legal obligation to support their children past the age of adulthoodor without proof of receipt of indirect consideration did not receive the necessary "reasonably equivalent value" from the college or university that received the tuition payments at issue.Two Pennsylvania bankruptcy courts, on the other hand, have denied such claims, finding "reasonably equivalent value" to have been received by the debtor/parents since the tuition payments were made out of a reasonable sense of parental obligation based on societal expectation that parents will assist with such expense if they are able to do so.

Palladino Ruling in Favor of Sacred Heart University

A ruling by Chief Judge Melvin Hoffman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts in the pending Chapter 7 bankruptcy case of In re Steven and Lori Palladino, et al., U.S.B.C. District of Massachusetts, Case No 14-11482, has tipped the scales ever so slightly in favor of institutions of higher education. In the Palladino case, the acting Chapter 7 trustee, Mark G. DeGiacomo (Trustee), sued Sacred Heart University (SHU) to avoid and recover a series of tuition payments totaling $64,696.22 funded by the Palladinos for their daughter's college tuition on the alternate theories of "actual"1 and "constructive" fraud. The Trustee urged that the tuition payments were avoidable given that the Palladinos had no legal obligation to pay for their adult daughter's college education and there was no evidence of any other direct or indirect economic value having been received from SHU, as that term is defined in the Bankruptcy Code.

While SHU urged that the Palladinos received direct economic benefit in exchange for the payments to SHU in the form of development of a "financially self-sufficient daughter," its primary argument was that the evidence established that the required "reasonably equivalent value" took the form of "indirect benefit" to the Palladinos resulting from payment of the tuition to the university. SHU argued that this "indirect benefit" took the form of satisfaction by the Palladinos of their "reasonable sense of parental obligation" as well as of societal expectation. SHU submitted affidavits of the Palladinos and their daughter, demonstrating that the daughter qualified as a "dependent" for purposes of applying for financial aid using the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form distributed by the U.S. Department of Education, a form that required the collection of the details of the Palladinos' own financial information. Additionally, over objection of the Trustee, SHU submitted the expert testimony of the former director of financial aid services of the State of Connecticut, who opined through affidavit regarding how colleges compute federal need-based financial aid for a dependent student, and a higher education consultant who separately opined on which students receive financial aid, why parents choose to pay for their children's college education, and the societal benefits of parental financial support and of attending college.2 Having established the factual evidence of "value," SHU urged that the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court to conclude that "reasonably equivalent value" includes the indirect value that flows to a parent and that the payments received by SHU, therefore, were not avoidable fraudulent transfers on any theory.

On Aug. 10, 2016, Judge Hoffman issued his Memorandum of Decision on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 76 (Decision). For SHU and other colleges and universities, it was a decision worth waiting for. After finding that the transfers to SHU were not per se avoidable merely based on the Palladinos' involvement in a Ponzi scheme, Judge Hoffman expressed that the central issue in the case before him was really about "value" – whether the tuition payments were avoidable "because the Palladinos did not receive reasonably equivalent value from SHU in exchange for the payments?" Decision at p. 6. While noting that the Trustee was correct to point out that under Massachusetts law, a parent has no legal obligation to support an adult child and so, as the Trustee suggested, the only possible justification the Palladinos could have had for paying their daughter's college costs were of a "recondite variety," the Court nonetheless found the Trustee's approach to valuing the Palladinos' payments to SHU to be "overly rigid." Decision at p. 7.

Instead, the Court accepted SHU's argument that the Palladinos' payments to SHU were made in exchange for "reasonably equivalent value" because the Palladinos believed that a financially self-sufficient daughter offered them an economic benefit and that a college degree would directly contribute to her financial self-sufficiency. In doing so, the Court held that:

A parent can reasonably assume that paying for a child to obtain an undergraduate degree will enhance the financial well-being of the child which in turn will confer an economic benefit on the parent. This, it seems to me, constitutes a quid pro quo that is reasonable and reasonable equivalence is all that is required.

Decision at p. 8

The Trustee filed a swift notice of appeal of the Decision on Aug. 15, 2016. The Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court countered with a rarely invoked right of the bankruptcy courts to certify an appeal of its order for direct appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit3 under 28 U.S.C. §158(d)(2). In his certification, Judge Hoffman urged that direct appeal is warranted as the Decision involves questions of law as to which there is no controlling decision in the First Circuit or from the Supreme Court, involves a matter of public importance and involves questions of law that have resulted in conflicting decisions among lower courts around the country.4 The Trustee will likely attempt to challenge this certification, but it is not likely that those efforts will be fruitful.

Conclusion and Considerations

Judge Hoffman's certification may have cleared an expeditious path for the Court of Appeals to establish the controlling law on an issue that, one way or another, will have an impact on providers of higher education, at least those with a student population that have a permanent residence in any of the states comprising the First Circuit.

Predicting the outcome of the Trustee's appeal is difficult given the lack of guidance within the Bankruptcy Code and the conflict between 1) use of avoidance powers to recover assets transferred pre-petition for the benefit of unpaid creditors of a bankrupt debtor and 2) the pro-education policies that generally encourage and support higher education.

In the meantime, a proposed bill to amend Bankruptcy Code Section 548 to preclude trustees from avoiding a good-faith payment by a parent for a child's post-secondary education tuition has languished in Congress.5 Given this stalled legislative effort, there will likely be no shortage of amicus briefs filed by major players in the higher education field desiring to shape Judge Hoffman's reasoning and ruling. Holland & Knight attorneys are prepared and willing to help with this critical process or answer any questions about the legal issues and their importance to the higher education sector. We will provide further updates as events unfold.

Footnotes

1 The Trustee asserted that the payments were presumed to have been made with actual intent to hinder or delay the Palladinos' creditors given that the Palladinos had admitted involvement in a Ponzi scheme.

2 The Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges and the Association of Independent Colleges & Universities of Rhode Island moved for permission to file a brief in support of SHU's summary judgment motion as amici curiae, urging that they had an interest in the suit given that the type of fraudulent transfer claim at issue "had serious implications [on the colleges they represented], the financial aid programs they administer, and the students they are educating" and that the Court should consider these implications in making its ruling. Palladino Case, Docket at No. 62. Ultimately, over objection of the Trustee, this motion was denied.Id. at Docket No. 65.

3 The traditional course of an appeal is to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel or the U.S. District Court.

4 Certification, Palladino Case Docket No. 85.

5 Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) has introduced legislation known as "The PACT (Protecting All College Tuition) Act of 2015" (Congressional Bills 114th Congress H.R. 2267).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions