KATHRYN MACEWEN CONTI v. ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY - Articles

All Content

KATHRYN MACEWEN CONTI v. ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Dec 14, 2020

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Austin C. Smith, SMITH LAW GROUP LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Britton C. Lewis, CARRUTHERS & ROTH, P.A., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Austin C. Smith, SMITH LAW GROUP LLP, New York, New York, Guy T. Conti, CONTILEGAL, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Britton C. Lewis, CARRUTHERS & ROTH, P.A., Greensboro, North Carolina, Paul R. Hage, JAFFE RAITT HEUER & WEISS, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): COLE, Chief Judge; DONALD and READLER, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

COLE, Chief Judge. After filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, Kathryn MacEwen Conti commenced an adversary proceeding against Arrowood Indemnity Co. seeking to determine that loans she incurred while enrolled at the University of Michigan were not “qualified education loan[s]” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B) and were thus dischargeable in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to Arrowood, concluding that the plain language of the loan documents demonstrated they were qualified education loans. Because the bankruptcy court’s conclusion was correct, we affirm its summary judgment in favor of Arrowood.

Attachments: