United States v. Wilson

Decision Date23 October 1979
Docket NumberCiv. No. 79-757.
Citation478 F. Supp. 488
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Ronald E. WILSON, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

Harry A. Nagle, Lewisburg, Pa., for plaintiff.

Louise O. Knight, Lewisburg, Pa., for defendant.

OPINION

MUIR, District Judge.

The United States commenced this action pursuant to § 432(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1082(a) alleging that Wilson defaulted on a federally guaranteed student loan. On August 2, 1979, Wilson filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to F.R. Civ.P. 12(c), accompanied by a brief, arguing that the United States' action is barred by the statute of limitations. The United States filed a brief in opposition to Wilson's motion on August 16, 1979 to which Wilson filed a reply brief on August 20, 1979. The Government filed a sur-reply brief addressing new matter raised in Wilson's reply brief on September 24, 1979.

Wilson's motion for judgment on the pleadings requires the Court to determine whether the Government can recover from the obligor of a defaulted federally insured student loan only on the theory of subrogation to the rights of the lender or whether it can rely on the common law right of a surety or guarantor to recover the amount of the defaulted loan from the obligor. The parties agree that the applicable statute of limitations in this case is six years and that if the Court determines that the United States' right to recover is based solely on its status as assignee of the note Wilson signed as evidence of the loan he received, then the action is barred by the statute of limitations because more than 6 years elapsed from the date of Wilson's default to the filing of this complaint. For the reasons which follow, the Court concludes that the United States may rely on common law rights of reimbursement from Wilson and, therefore, the Court will deny Wilson's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Wilson does not dispute the general proposition that a guarantor or surety who discharges the obligation of its principal is entitled to reimbursement from the principal. Wilson's claim is that the guaranteed student loan program limits the Government's rights to that of an assignee of the rights of the lender. Wilson points to language in 20 U.S.C. § 1080(b) which states that the United States shall be subrogated to all the rights of the lender and shall be entitled to an assignment of the note or other evidence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • U.S. v. Bellard
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 23, 1982
    ...Education Assistance Agency, 497 F.Supp. 712 (W.D.Pa.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 657 F.2d 554 (3d Cir. 1981); United States v. Wilson, 478 F.Supp. 488 (M.D.Pa.1979); United States v. Winter, 319 F.Supp. 520 (E.D.La.1970); contra United States v. Lucas, 516 F.Supp. at 936 (E.D.Tex.1981) (......
  • In re Total Containment, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 04-13144bf (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1/29/2008)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • January 29, 2008
    ...to seek restitution for unjust enrichment from a principal for any payment the guarantor made to the creditor. See United States v. Wilson, 478 F. Supp. 488 (M.D. Pa. 1979); Bishoff Fehl; Etter v. Industrial Valley Bank and Trust Co., 356 Pa. Super. 502, 515 A.2d 6 (1986) (right of recovery......
  • United States v. Whitesell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • June 3, 1983
    ...United States v. Tilleraas, 538 F.Supp. 1 (N.D.Ohio 1981); United States v. Lujan, 520 F.Supp. 282 (D.N.M.1980); United States v. Wilson, 478 F.Supp. 488 (M.D.Pa.1979). Accordingly, this Court concludes that as a surety or guarantor of the Defendant's obligation on his promissory note, the ......
  • U.S. v. Tilleraas
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • June 17, 1983
    ...the claim to the lending institution, in addition to those already cited, see United States v. Lujan, supra, and United States v. Wilson, 478 F.Supp. 488 (M.D.Pa.1979). Accordingly, we affirm the thoughtful decision of the district court, concluding that the United States, as surety-guarant......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT