has satisfied the first part of the Brunner test, because we hold that she has failed to prove the second and third factors. We do note, however, that ECMC is mistaken to suggest that having Internet and cable connections requires the conclusion that Frushour maintains more than “a ‘minimal’ standard of living.” Brunner, 831 F.2d at 396. Such a per se rule would simply be too harsh. It cannot be said that the transmission of information, whether via Internet or cable, is always unnecessary to maintain a minimal standard of living, especially for those who work from home. The undue hardship test necessarily requires a case-by-case approach to determine whether certain expenses are or are not essential for maintaining a minimal standard of living. See, e.g., Rifino, 245 F.3d at 1088 (<HOLDING>). In short, the mere fact of Frushour’s
holding that debtor failed the first brunner prong because she did not demonstrate that she had maximized earnings and minimized expenses holding that even though the declarant was not in danger she was experiencing an ongoing emergency because she did not know where her children were and she feared for their safety holding that debtor did not satisfy the third prong because she did not seek out loan consolidation options even though she made several payments on her student loan debt holding debtor satisfied first prong even though she had cable television holding that even though a visitor may be an invitee when she first enters the premises her status may change to licensee while she is there if the use to which she puts the property is not within the scope of the invitation