for a personal, family, or household purpose.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(8). The Tenth Circuit has not interpreted the definition of “consumer debts” set forth in § 101(8) in the context of § 707(b). But see Citizens Natl Bank v. Burns (In re Burns), 894 F.2d 361 (10th C amily and commercial loans to finance his education, he also used them to support his family. Most courts, like the court in In re Gentri, 185 B.R. 368, 373 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1995), assume, but do not analyze, whether student loans are “consumer debts.” See In re Dickerson, 193 B.R. 67, 70 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.l996); In re Chapman, 146 B.R. 411, 416 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1992). But at least one court has held, similar to the Bankruptcy Court, that student loans may be “consumer debts.” In re Vianese, 192 B.R. 61, 68 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y.1996) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that student loans are not
holding that a debt incurred for a personal family or household purpose is a consumer debt even though it is secured by the debtors real property holding that records relating to a student court were not education records holding that the fdcpa applies only to consumer debts incurred primarily for personal family or household purposes holding that a debtor has primarily consumer debts if the aggregate amount of consumer debt is more than 50 of the total debt holding that student loans for debtors sons education were for family purposes and should be considered consumer debt