monthly income was $3,750. The bankruptcy court also found that Jorgensen’s necessary average monthly expenses were $4,100. The bankruptcy court concluded that Jorgensen’s expenses were “essential ... due to the nature of her employment and her serious health issues.” ECMC contends that the bankruptcy court’s conclusion is erroneous because Jorgensen’s budget contains unnecessary items such as a new car, extravagant food spending, new clothes, dry cleaning, travel, and miscellaneous expenses. ECMC contends that Jorgensen’s budget does not constitute a minimal standard of living. ECMC argues that courts have declined to discharge student loan debt where the debtor’s budget included a new ear, high clothing expenses, and extravagant food expenses. See In re Nascimento, 241 B.R. at 445 (<HOLDING>); Chapelle v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re
holding even minimal payment required by the icrp could be beyond the debtors means holding that plaintiffs who were in the car during car accident could recover for emotional damages because they were within zone of danger holding that a debtors expenses were not minimal because they included a hairdresser chiropractor and 544 car payment holding that debtors were entitled to discharge of their student loans despite the fact that they received a postpetition lump sum payment for pastdue disability and used it to purchase an approximately twenty 20 year old car and to pay other bills the ninth circuit reasoned that this did not preclude the debtors from satisfying the third brunner prong because of the cars age implying that debtors did not incur a large expense and the creditors failure to show why good faith would require the debtors to pay off the student loan instead of their other debts holding that a debtors ability to make reduced payments under the icrp is relevant to the inquiry of whether the debtors reasonable future financial resources will cover payment of the debt while still allowing a minimal standard of living