[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Good morning, your honors.

[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
May it please the court?

[00:00:02] Speaker 03:
My name is Matt Christensen.

[00:00:03] Speaker 03:
I represent the appellant, Dr. Laura Reese.

[00:00:07] Speaker 03:
As the court's aware, this case is about eligibility to be a subchapter five debtor in a chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

[00:00:16] Speaker 03:
There's essentially four elements that are required under the definition.

[00:00:20] Speaker 03:
This is about one of those elements.

[00:00:22] Speaker 03:
whether the majority of Dr. Reese's debts stem from commercial or business activities.

[00:00:30] Speaker 03:
That's the fourth of those four, the last one, right?

[00:00:32] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:00:34] Speaker 03:
There's ways of reordering it, but it's generally the fourth of the four.

[00:00:40] Speaker 03:
The bankruptcy court, in its determination, recognized that nearly all of the facts in the case were undisputed.

[00:00:50] Speaker 03:
There was testimony at the hearing from Dr. Reese.

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
She was cross-examined.

[00:00:56] Speaker 03:
There wasn't any other testimony presented from any other party.

[00:01:00] Speaker 03:
The facts are largely undisputed.

[00:01:02] Speaker 03:
I would say the relevant facts are all undisputed.

[00:01:06] Speaker 03:
So I think that's one issue where we believe

[00:01:13] Speaker 03:
The district court may have aired, and that's in the standard of review on appeal of that bankruptcy court's decision.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
Our view is, because the facts are undisputed,

[00:01:23] Speaker 03:
It's an application of the law to those facts, which is a de novo review, not a clear error review.

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
There weren't facts that the bankruptcy court had to determine because they were undisputed.

[00:01:36] Speaker 03:
Under a de novo review, we believe the bankruptcy court aired and ignored certain facts that were still undisputed.

[00:01:45] Speaker 05:
So if I could ask you a question, please.

[00:01:50] Speaker 05:
Assuming it's Ganova review rather than clear error, my understanding was that the nature of the debts here that caused the controversy was that they were educational.

[00:02:12] Speaker 05:
And if that's true, how do they meet the standard of being commercial?

[00:02:19] Speaker 03:
And that's, I think, where the dispute is.

[00:02:22] Speaker 03:
The student loans were incurred while Dr. Reese went to medical school.

[00:02:26] Speaker 03:
Her plan prior to going to medical school was to get that degree so she could open her own medical practice.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
Her testimony at the hearing was that was the plan the entire time.

[00:02:37] Speaker 03:
She also testified that in order to

[00:02:40] Speaker 03:
open her own medical practice.

[00:02:42] Speaker 03:
She needs a medical degree.

[00:02:44] Speaker 03:
She needs a residency to continue that medical training and she needs some amount of time continuing her medical training through some employment scenario.

[00:02:53] Speaker 03:
But that testimony was undisputed at the at the trial and

[00:02:58] Speaker 03:
because her plan the entire time was to open her own medical practice.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
That degree was required in order to do that.

[00:03:12] Speaker 00:
I really understand your argument, because the business that she was engaged in is the medical practice, right?

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
At the time she filed for bankruptcy and tried to take advantage of this chapter five procedure, she was engaged in the business of running her medical practice.

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
She owned and operated the medical practice at the time the bankruptcy was filed.

[00:03:32] Speaker 00:
And the question that we have to answer is whether her student loan debt arose out of that medical practice.

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
That's the statutory requirement that it has to arise out of commercial or business activity.

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
Here, the relevant commercial business activity is the medical practice.

[00:03:55] Speaker 03:
I want to clarify one issue, Your Honor, and I think the bankruptcy court identified this and addressed it.

[00:04:01] Speaker 03:
This is the issue that wasn't appealed.

[00:04:03] Speaker 03:
Whether there has to be a nexus between the actual commercial or business activity at the time you file bankruptcy,

[00:04:10] Speaker 03:
and the commercial or business activity when the debt was incurred, or whether the debt was incurred for that exact business or commercial activity.

[00:04:18] Speaker 00:
Well, it has to arise out of the business activity in order for her to be eligible, right?

[00:04:22] Speaker 03:
It has to arise out of a commercial or business activity, not the commercial.

[00:04:26] Speaker 00:
And that's why I started my question with trying to identify what the A, business activity that you're relying on.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
And as I understand the arguments,

[00:04:37] Speaker 00:
both presented below in here, is that she was engaged in running her medical practice.

[00:04:42] Speaker 00:
And that's the business activity that she was engaged in.

[00:04:45] Speaker 03:
And the business activity that the debts were originally incurred for.

[00:04:49] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:04:50] Speaker 03:
So our position is, and I'm sorry.

[00:04:52] Speaker 00:
No, I think we're going in the same direction.

[00:04:54] Speaker 00:
I just want to make sure that I understand your argument.

[00:04:56] Speaker 00:
The business activity that she's relying on is the medical practice, which she started in 2020.

[00:05:04] Speaker 00:
But the debt was incurred in 2010.

[00:05:10] Speaker 00:
connect that and argue that the loan incurred in 2010 arose out of her engaging in the business of running her medical practice.

[00:05:20] Speaker 00:
It's that disconnect that I'm struggling with.

[00:05:23] Speaker 03:
And I think, honestly, that's what the bankruptcy court struggled with, too, in determining that, hey, this period of time between the education and the opening of her business was essentially too long.

[00:05:38] Speaker 03:
Our argument is she couldn't open the business without that medical degree.

[00:05:43] Speaker 03:
She had to have it.

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
The purpose for getting the medical degree was to open that business.

[00:05:50] Speaker 01:
That's true of any professional degree.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
I disagree, because you can get a medical degree and plan to work for a hospital your entire career.

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
I think one of the cases you cited was a Colorado case.

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
It gave it great latitude.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
I think it's the Yagovitch, if I'm pronouncing that correctly, case.

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
Is that right?

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
And that was dealt with below.

[00:06:11] Speaker 03:
The pronunciation, I'll leave it up to you.

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
I can pronounce it the same way you did.

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
But my point of following on Judge Winn's question is that that language there was for purpose of earning an income.

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
and that that was the sufficient purpose of the debt in terms of it rising out of a commercial or business activity, correct?

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
That's what the Colorado Bankruptcy Court that you cited was the purpose of earning an income.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
Rather a broad brush, isn't it?

[00:06:39] Speaker 01:
Most people who go to dental school or medical school or law school at some point in time hope to earn an income in some fashion from it, isn't that correct?

[00:06:47] Speaker 03:
I think that's correct.

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
So how do you not open up the floodgates if we take your argument to its logical conclusion?

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
It isn't just a minor matter that the loans here were incurred between 2005 and 2009.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
And she opened her law practice, actually, in August.

[00:07:04] Speaker 01:
The medical, they now defunct private practice of which you're speaking.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
was opened in August of 2021.

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
We have more than 10 years.

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
We have 11 plus years later when she finally opens her own medical practice.

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
So it's not just a time frame reference.

[00:07:23] Speaker 01:
It's the matter of whether the basic purpose of a student loan and going to professional school.

[00:07:29] Speaker 03:
That's where I think two things temper that result.

[00:07:35] Speaker 03:
First is,

[00:07:37] Speaker 03:
the factual issue here that Dr. Reese intended to always operate her own medical practice.

[00:07:44] Speaker 03:
That's not always the case at the time someone goes to medical school or any professional school.

[00:07:50] Speaker 03:
The second thing, which is somewhat related to that, is to qualify for subchapter five, there's four elements.

[00:07:57] Speaker 03:
We're dealing with just, did her debt stem from that commercial or business activity?

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
Yeah, the fourth, the first family issue, the point is the fourth element is,

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
at least half of that debt arose from the debtor's commercial or business activities.

[00:08:12] Speaker 01:
So it was important for her to reach that criteria to include her student debt so she could satisfy that fourth criteria of more than half her debt arising from a commercial or business activity.

[00:08:25] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:08:26] Speaker 03:
Absent of the student loans, more than half her debt would not have arisen from a commercial business activity.

[00:08:30] Speaker 01:
And I could be wrong, but I think the papers here indicate that the trustee, we'll hear from the trustee in a minute, the trustee is not arguing that student loan can never be a commercial business activity.

[00:08:40] Speaker 01:
That's not before us, is it?

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
That's not before us, and that's not what the bankruptcy court decided either.

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
But limited to whether on the facts of this case, it can be said that that student loan some 11 years earlier

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
would qualify as being arising from a commercial or business activity, which did not exist then, but would exist or did exist some 11 years later.

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
And that's where the first element of the four-part test would prevent the situation that you described earlier of, look, anyone that goes to a professional school would then somehow qualify to be a subchapter five debtor.

[00:09:17] Speaker 03:
They have to be actually operating

[00:09:19] Speaker 03:
a commercial or business activity at the time of the bankruptcy filing.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
And that wouldn't necessarily be always the case.

[00:09:26] Speaker 05:
The case counts.

[00:09:27] Speaker 05:
Sorry to interrupt there.

[00:09:29] Speaker 05:
But didn't you say a few minutes ago that the debts have to stem from a commercial activity?

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:09:41] Speaker 03:
The fourth test is at least 50% of the debts have to arise from commercial or business activity.

[00:09:47] Speaker 05:
So it will arise from?

[00:09:50] Speaker 05:
That language to me or STEM suggests that the debts that you're trying to consider have to be caused by some commercial activity.

[00:10:04] Speaker 05:
And we don't have that activity, it seems to me, when she's in school.

[00:10:14] Speaker 03:
If the only fact was she was in school, I would probably agree with you.

[00:10:19] Speaker 03:
But when she's in school, so she can get the credential to operate her own medical practice, that's the factual difference, I think.

[00:10:28] Speaker 03:
And that's where if I'm just going to medical school to get a degree and I hope I get a job somewhere later, that would not be a commercial or business activity.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
Mr. Christensen, following up on Judge Gould's question, you, I believe, cited, for example, another Colorado bankruptcy case that tried to use Chapter 7 as an argument.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
And Palmer versus I think it's Lane is the case you cited.

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
In that case, the evidence was pretty clear that the individual obtained a doctorate degree in business administration specifically immediately to run a company that was at the time his employer.

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
It was a pretty immediate effect, correct?

[00:11:09] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:11:09] Speaker 01:
I mean, we're not talking 11 years later.

[00:11:11] Speaker 01:
It was actually evidence that he went to get his doctorate

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
in business administration because he was essentially going to buy his employer and needed that degree.

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
They certainly aren't the facts here though.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
Those aren't the facts here and that's why I think a sort of a per se rule that student loans never or always will qualify as

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
No, I agree with you.

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
I think we've addressed that.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
I understand that this court isn't required to make that conclusion.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
And I think the record is here that the trustee is not arguing that that's the case.

[00:11:44] Speaker 01:
But here in this, following up on Judge Gould's question, is your argument that the initial debt from 2005 to 2009 arose at that time out of a commercial or business activity.

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
I gather your response is, well, there was no commercial or business activity at that time, but there was going to be.

[00:12:02] Speaker 03:
There was going to be, and there couldn't be at that time because she didn't have the degree yet.

[00:12:08] Speaker 03:
She couldn't open her own medical practice without that credential.

[00:12:12] Speaker 03:
The business degree is different because you can start a business the day after you graduate.

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
With the medical practice, there's additional training that you're expected to have to be competent enough to open your own practice.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
And that's what she pursued.

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
The test that arises from the statutory language, arising or arose from the debtor's commercial or business activity, that seems to be an objective test.

[00:12:36] Speaker 00:
Are you saying that the court had to have looked into her subjective intent?

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
I took the step out intending to open a business.

[00:12:45] Speaker 03:
I think that's what we're arguing, yes.

[00:12:47] Speaker 00:
Do you have a case indicating that in this context we looked at somebody's subjective intent?

[00:12:53] Speaker 03:
The issue we always run into with subchapter five arguments is it's only been around for, I think, four years at this point.

[00:13:00] Speaker 01:
It's the result of the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019.

[00:13:05] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:13:07] Speaker 01:
Which was meant to help existing small businesses.

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
which she was at the time she filed the papers.

[00:13:13] Speaker 01:
She wasn't in 2005 to 2009.

[00:13:16] Speaker 03:
She intended to be in 2005.

[00:13:17] Speaker 03:
I understand, I understand.

[00:13:19] Speaker 05:
Counsel, you're down to under two minutes.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
I forgot to mention I wanted to reserve a couple of minutes at the end.

[00:13:26] Speaker 05:
Well, maybe you should, unless one of my colleagues has a question for you.

[00:13:31] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:13:32] Speaker 05:
Right now you should reserve your remaining time.

[00:13:37] Speaker 05:
We'll hear from the appellee.

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, Andrew Beyer for Appellee, United States Trustee.

[00:13:54] Speaker 02:
We think this is an easy case.

[00:14:00] Speaker 02:
The issue of what commercial or business activity is or how it's defined is a good academic question.

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
But this case, as some of the judges questioning has identified,

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
makes it an easier case than some of the factual patterns you might come up with.

[00:14:19] Speaker 01:
We are correct in understanding that you're not arguing that student loans can never be commercial or business activity.

[00:14:25] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:14:26] Speaker 02:
I think in general.

[00:14:27] Speaker 01:
Nor are you requesting the court hold that.

[00:14:29] Speaker 02:
No, no, no, sir.

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
In general, I would say student loans will not be considered commercial business activity.

[00:14:37] Speaker 02:
Typically, you're going to school.

[00:14:39] Speaker 02:
It's just that transaction.

[00:14:41] Speaker 02:
You're exchanging money for an education for your personal education, not for a specific business purpose.

[00:14:48] Speaker 02:
What we're arguing is when the debt arises, you look at what the purpose was at the time.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
If there is no current business activity or commercial activity when the debt arises that wasn't the original purpose for it, then it doesn't help you qualify for a small business eligibility.

[00:15:11] Speaker 02:
And I think you asked about the standard review.

[00:15:15] Speaker 02:
I think this is a factual question that the judge got right.

[00:15:18] Speaker 02:
This is a totality of circumstances type test that the judge has to weigh all the relevant evidence to determine whether it was a commercial or business activity.

[00:15:27] Speaker 02:
You know, here we have

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
The facts are, at the time she entered medical school, she did not have a business.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
She was a full-time student.

[00:15:33] Speaker 02:
She wasn't even earning income.

[00:15:35] Speaker 02:
Even if you wanted to extend commercial or business activity to earning income, which we disagree with.

[00:15:40] Speaker 02:
We don't think that qualifies by itself.

[00:15:43] Speaker 02:
She wasn't even earning income.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
She was a full-time student.

[00:15:46] Speaker 02:
So while she was in medical school, she didn't have a business.

[00:15:49] Speaker 02:
That's undisputed.

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
And she wasn't earning income.

[00:15:53] Speaker 02:
And there is testimony.

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
The testimony is kind of conflicting.

[00:15:58] Speaker 02:
You know, the opposing counsel suggests she always wanted to have a medical practice.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
This was her goal in life.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
The only evidence of that is her own testimony, and that's conflicting.

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
So there was a fact to weigh there for the bankruptcy judge to look at all the facts and consider whether that was her actual intent.

[00:16:17] Speaker 02:
And I have the testimony here.

[00:16:21] Speaker 02:
Did you know exactly where and for whom you would be working when you started medical school?

[00:16:27] Speaker 02:
And her answer was no.

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
And later on, she said, well, yeah, I kind of always wanted to open my own practice.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
So even if her subjective intent at the time the debt arose was a factor, that was a fact at issue that the bankruptcy judge found regarding all the relevant facts.

[00:16:48] Speaker 02:
was not her then-president intent.

[00:16:49] Speaker 02:
Maybe she had a hope or a dream, but it wasn't an actual plan.

[00:16:53] Speaker 02:
And that's what our argument is, is that there's got to be some nexus when the debt arises to the actual commercial or business enterprise or activity that's going on.

[00:17:03] Speaker 02:
It doesn't have to be the same business you're engaged in to qualify you for subchapter five.

[00:17:07] Speaker 02:
We're not making that argument.

[00:17:09] Speaker 02:
Our argument is commercial business activity

[00:17:11] Speaker 02:
The way those words are used in the definition have to be defined the same way.

[00:17:17] Speaker 02:
So if a person going to medical school, if that is a commercial or business activity by itself,

[00:17:24] Speaker 02:
then like Judge Bennett said, that would open the floodgates to anyone who's a student who may want to eventually earn income or open a business at some point in the future.

[00:17:34] Speaker 02:
They would be eligible for subchapter five because that means they would also be engaged in commercial activity at the same time as the debt arose.

[00:17:42] Speaker 02:
If you're defining commercial and business activity that broadly.

[00:17:45] Speaker 02:
So we think it requires a nexus to some business or opportunity at the time the debt arises.

[00:17:52] Speaker 02:
And the testimony I just read, she didn't have any plan of where she was going to work or whether she was going to open a business at the time she was in medical school.

[00:18:01] Speaker 02:
So that's in the record.

[00:18:03] Speaker 02:
And whether there's conflicting evidence on that, that would be a factual determination by the bankruptcy judge.

[00:18:09] Speaker 02:
And he determined it was not commercial or business activity.

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
So we think the standard review here is

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
a clear error for that fact.

[00:18:18] Speaker 02:
But even under de novo review, we think it should be affirmed.

[00:18:22] Speaker 02:
I just wanted to add another relevant fact in this case to what her intent was at the time the debt arose is her 2018 bankruptcy case.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
And that's in our supplemental appendix.

[00:18:42] Speaker 02:
We put the petition in there.

[00:18:45] Speaker 02:
She filed chapter 7 in 2018.

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
And when she did so, she checked the box to characterize her debt as consumer debt.

[00:18:54] Speaker 02:
At that point in 2018, she called it consumer debt.

[00:18:58] Speaker 02:
And now when it benefits her in her subchapter 5 case to call it business debt.

[00:19:04] Speaker 02:
This was her second filing in bankruptcy.

[00:19:07] Speaker 02:
Yes, sir.

[00:19:07] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:19:07] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:19:08] Speaker 02:
And obviously student loans don't get discharged in either case, the Chapter 7, so that's why the debt still exists.

[00:19:17] Speaker 02:
So that's another relevant fact in looking at all the totality of the circumstances that the bankruptcy judge was looking at.

[00:19:23] Speaker 02:
In addition, the length of time in between when the debt arose and when she ultimately opened her business,

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
They say that's required steps you have to take to ultimately become a doctor.

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
that length of time is too far removed, we think, to get that nexus of an actual business when the debt arises.

[00:19:47] Speaker 02:
And I think most of the cases discuss the engaged in prong, but we think they're relevant to both because commercial business activity is the same word, so it should be interpreted the same way.

[00:20:00] Speaker 02:
But the couple of cases that

[00:20:02] Speaker 02:
Do talk about arose from, I think the one Binion case, it's the district of bankruptcy, the district of Idaho that cited in our brief.

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
It helped me think about this issue where the debtor wasn't, there's no question he was engaged in business.

[00:20:19] Speaker 02:
I think he had a tree cutting business and

[00:20:25] Speaker 02:
He went to do a job for a family member for free as a courtesy, as a personal matter, to cut down their trees.

[00:20:32] Speaker 02:
And in the course of doing that, a tree fell on him.

[00:20:34] Speaker 02:
He was injured.

[00:20:36] Speaker 02:
Substantial medical debt.

[00:20:37] Speaker 02:
So he ended up in bankruptcy.

[00:20:39] Speaker 02:
He filed under subchapter 5.

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
So there's no question he's engaged in commercial business activity, but the actual injury

[00:20:47] Speaker 02:
arose from his personal actions of cutting trees, the same activity he's engaged in in his business.

[00:20:52] Speaker 02:
But in that case, it was personal.

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
So the court said, no, that debt arose from your personal activities, not your business activities.

[00:21:01] Speaker 02:
So you can see how, in that case, I would say there's a stronger nexus

[00:21:06] Speaker 02:
because he was doing the actual activity of his business.

[00:21:08] Speaker 02:
And he was currently engaged in that business when the tree fell on him.

[00:21:12] Speaker 02:
But you look at the purpose of the debt.

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
And here, her purpose was clearly personal at the time she took out the student loans.

[00:21:21] Speaker 02:
And I think that's the general rule most courts would say, that an individual consumer transaction is not

[00:21:30] Speaker 02:
commercial or business activity, even though an economist may say everything in the world is commerce.

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
But the statute needs to be more narrow and specific because the definition is intended to narrow the scope for only those small business debtors that engage with customers.

[00:21:48] Speaker 02:
It's not activity, it's activities.

[00:21:51] Speaker 02:
So you look at the totality of all the activities, would that be considered a business?

[00:22:06] Speaker 02:
Yeah, and I think I've covered everything I wanted to cover.

[00:22:09] Speaker 02:
Unless there's questions from the court, I cede the rest of my time.

[00:22:13] Speaker 02:
And I thank you for your time and attention.

[00:22:14] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I have no questions.

[00:22:15] Speaker 01:
I have no questions.

[00:22:16] Speaker 01:
No further questions.

[00:22:18] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:22:18] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:22:20] Speaker 04:
And we thank counsel for the argument.

[00:22:23] Speaker 04:
And we'll hear from the panel.

[00:22:27] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:22:27] Speaker 03:
Just a couple of last comments.

[00:22:31] Speaker 03:
The rule that there shouldn't be a per se rule saying that student loans will always or never constitute business or commercial activity leaves room for times when they can.

[00:22:44] Speaker 03:
And that's what this case is about.

[00:22:46] Speaker 03:
Is this a time when it can?

[00:22:49] Speaker 03:
What we propose is when the degree or the credential or whatever it is you're going to school for is required to operate that business,

[00:22:59] Speaker 03:
then the cost to get that degree should be considered part of the business or commercial activities.

[00:23:06] Speaker 03:
At the hearing, Dr. Reese, there were follow-up questions to what opposing counsel read to the court.

[00:23:15] Speaker 03:
Those follow-up questions were very clear.

[00:23:18] Speaker 03:
You said you have always wanted to have your own practice.

[00:23:21] Speaker 03:
Did I hear that correctly?

[00:23:22] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:23:23] Speaker 03:
Has that been the case from the very beginning of going to medical school?

[00:23:27] Speaker 03:
Yes, this degree was required in order for her to be able to operate her own medical practice.

[00:23:35] Speaker 03:
That's the time, that's the sort of situation where the costs for those student loans should be considered costs arising from business or commercial activities.

[00:23:47] Speaker 03:
Unless there's other additional questions, I've finished.

[00:23:50] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:23:51] Speaker 05:
Hey, thank you.

[00:23:54] Speaker 05:
I'm hearing no questions.

[00:23:57] Speaker 05:
The Reese case shall now be submitted.