Rubey v. Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education

217 P.3d 413 (Alaska 2009) · Supreme Court of Alaska · August 21, 2009 · No. S-12996

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Leland Rubey's request to cancel four Alaska education loans based on total and permanent disability. The court held that the loan-origination-fee statute, applicable regulations, and Rubey's promissory notes did not create a right to medical cancellation. It also upheld the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education's discretion to issue loans with or without medical-cancellation provisions and concluded that the governing regulation was valid.

Court
Supreme Court of Alaska
Writing for the Court
Winfree, Justice; Fabe, Chief Justice; Eastaugh, Justice; Carpeneti, Justice; Christen, Justice
Jurisdiction
Alaska
Decision date
August 21, 2009
Docket number
S-12996
Procedural posture
Rubey appealed the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education's denial of his request to cancel four education loans because of total and permanent medical disability. The superior court, acting as an intermediate appellate court in the administrative matter, affirmed the agency's decision, and Rubey appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
Standard of review
When the superior court acts as an intermediate appellate court in an administrative case, the Alaska Supreme Court reviews the merits of the agency's decision directly and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. The substantial-evidence test applies to factual questions, the reasonable-basis test to questions of law involving agency expertise, the substitution-of-judgment test to legal questions involving no agency expertise, and the reasonable-and-not-arbitrary test to administrative regulations. Statutory interpretation is reviewed independently under the rule of law most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy, considering plain meaning, legislative purpose, and legislative intent.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Leland C. Rubey v. Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

administrative lawjudicial review of agency actionstatutory interpretationrulemakingappellate procedure

Practice areas

administrative laweducation lawstudent loansstatutory interpretationagency rulemaking

Questions Presented

  1. Whether AS 14.43.120(u), which authorizes loan origination fees to offset losses arising from borrower disability and other events, creates a statutory right to medical cancellation of student loans.
  2. Whether 20 AAC 15.920 or 20 AAC 15.915 creates a regulatory right to medical cancellation when the promissory notes contain no medical-cancellation provision.
  3. Whether ACPE's decision to stop including medical-cancellation provisions in promissory notes constituted a policy change requiring formal Administrative Procedures Act rulemaking.
  4. Whether 20 AAC 15.920 is invalid or arbitrary because it limits medical-cancellation procedures to loans whose promissory notes contain cancellation provisions.

Holdings

  1. AS 14.43.120(u) does not provide borrowers with a right to medical cancellation of their student loan obligations.
  2. Neither 20 AAC 15.920 nor 20 AAC 15.915 entitles Rubey to medical cancellation of his student loans.
  3. ACPE's decisions to include medical-cancellation provisions in some pre-1996 promissory notes and to eliminate those provisions beginning in 1996 were exercises of discretionary business judgment, not policies requiring formal Administrative Procedures Act rulemaking.
  4. 20 AAC 15.920 is a valid, properly promulgated regulation and is not arbitrary or capricious merely because it applies only to loans containing medical-cancellation provisions.

Key quotations

We conclude that they do not, and we affirm the denial of the recipient's request for medical cancellation of his loan obligations. (413)
It simply does not follow from the legislature's creation of a fund to offset losses that it therefore intends to forgive a certain class of debts. (417)
Because there is no statutory or regulatory right to medical cancellation, Rubey is not entitled to have his student loan obligations cancelled due to medical disability. (418)

Factual background

Between 1996 and 1998, Leland Rubey received four education loans from the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education. None of the promissory notes contained a provision allowing medical cancellation, although some pre-1996 ACPE loan notes had included such provisions. After Rubey was diagnosed with a total and permanent disability, he requested cancellation of the loans, arguing that statutory loan-origination fees intended to offset losses from borrower disability implied a right to cancellation.

Procedural history

ACPE denied Rubey's medical-cancellation request. Following a hearing officer's summary-adjudication decision concluding that Rubey's promissory notes lacked medical-cancellation provisions and that the governing origination-fee statute created no independent cancellation right, the superior court affirmed. The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the agency decision directly and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…