Munk v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 84-1855
| Decision Date | 14 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1855,84-1855 |
| Parties | Keith C. MUNK and Mary H. Munk, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FEDERAL LAND BANK OF WICHITA and its agents, William A. Dowell, Mike McKenna, Farmers Home Administration, and its agent, Jerald Bandel, Donald Madison, County Supervisor, and J.W. Smith, District Director of Farmers Home Administration, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Keith C. Munk and Mary H. Munk, pro se.
Before SEYMOUR and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and KANE, District Judge. *
In accordance with 10th Cir.R. 9(e) and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), this appeal came on for consideration on the briefs and record on appeal.
This is an appeal by plaintiffs of the dismissal of their complaint without prejudice for lack of a substantial federal question. Plaintiffs' complaints arise from loan transactions between plaintiffs and the Federal Land Bank of Wichita (the Bank) and between plaintiffs and the Farmers Home Administration (FHA).
According to the complaint, on April 15, 1980, plaintiffs executed a promissory note to the Bank for the principal amount of $118,000. As collateral for this loan, plaintiffs also executed a mortgage on their farm on the same date. Plaintiffs now assert that neither the note nor the mortgage contain a disclosure statement as allegedly required under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1601, et seq. Plaintiffs allege that on February 10, 1984, plaintiffs rescinded the loan agreement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1635 and that the Bank and its employees therefore cannot enforce the agreement.
This court agrees with the district court that the Truth in Lending Act does not apply to this transaction. At the time of the execution of the note, the Act exempted "[c]redit transactions primarily for agricultural purposes in which the total amount to be financed exceeds $25,000." 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1603(5) (Supp.IV 1974) (current version at 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1603(1) (1982)). The district court properly characterized plaintiffs' complaint as arising out of an agricultural loan transaction in which the amount financed exceeded $25,000. Since the Truth in Lending Act does not apply to this transaction, plaintiffs' allegation that the Bank illegally added a fee for compliance with the Act in violation of 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2610 is also without merit.
Plaintiffs make the conclusional assertion that some defendants "harrassed plaintiff Mary Munk" in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692(d), et seq. This Act does not apply to this debt or to these creditors. This debt was not incurred for "personal, family, or household purposes." See 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692a(5). Further, the defendants are not attempting to collect another's debt. See id. Sec. 1692a(6)(A).
Finally, plaintiffs allege that the Bank required plaintiffs "to purchase stock in defendant's association ... in violation ... of the Securities [and Exchange Act]," 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78a, et seq. The Securities and Exchange Act does not apply to this transaction. See Zabriskie v. Lewis, 507 F.2d 546 (10th Cir.1974).
Plaintiffs also assert various federal claims for unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 57a(f), violation of the Federal Reserve Act, the alleged failure of the Bank to institute a program to help young farmers under 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2207(a), and a vague allegation that the Bank has hidden assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. These claims are without merit. Accordingly, all federal causes of action were properly dismissed as to the Bank and its employees. The district court therefore properly dismissed the complaint against the Bank and its employees for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs have also brought suit against the Farmers Home Administration (FHA) and three FHA employees. Most of plaintiffs' claims against these defendants are identical to their claims against the Bank and its employees, including the same allegations of unfair debt collection practices, failure to assist young farmers and ranchers, and violations of the Federal Reserve Act and the statutory prohibition against hiding assets during bankruptcy proceedings. This court finds these claims to be without merit for the same reasons outlined above.
Plaintiffs also allege the FHA and its employees violated the Truth in Lending Act. Their claims against these defendants, however, involve an assumption agreement executed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. PHH Mortg. Serv. Ctr.
...apply to the activities of a homeowners or condominium association in collecting a debt on its own behalf); Munk v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 791 F.2d 130, 132 (10th Cir. 1986) (FDCPA did not apply to individuals "not attempting to collect another's debt"). In the instant case, plaintif......
-
Gregory v. Federal Land Bank of Jackson
...(8th Cir.1985); Felt v. Federal Land Bank Association of Belle Fourche, 760 F.2d 209, 210 (8th Cir.1985); Munk v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 791 F.2d 130, 131 (10th Cir.1986); Smith v. Russellville Production Credit Association, 777 F.2d 1544, 1549 (11th Cir.1985); K/O Ranch v. Norwest B......
-
Strange v. Wexler
...note for the purchase price of a limited partnership investment not a consumer debt under § 1692a(5)); Munk v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 791 F.2d 130 (10th Cir.1986) (same as to agricultural loan); Bank of Boston International of Miami v. Tefel, 644 F.Supp. 1423, 1430 (E.D.N.Y. 1986) (s......
-
Morris v. Steffes Grp., Inc.
...Period , 24 S.C. L. Rev. 880, 887, 892 (1972) (noting exclusions in Maryland and Virginia); see also Munk v. Fed. Land Bank of Wichita , 791 F.2d 130, 131–32 (10th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1603(5) (Supp. IV 1974)) (observing that the Federal TILA expressly exempted certai......
-
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Attorneys Beware
...32 F.3d 86 (4th Cir. 1994). [FN17]. Staub v. Harris, 626 F.2d 275 (3rd Cir. 1980). [FN18]. Munk v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 791 F.2d 130 (10th Cir. 1986). [FN19]. Galuska v. Blumenthal, 1994 WL 323121 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (but would be covered if the action attempted to collect money in ad......
-
How To...
...U.S.C. §1692a(5). The Act does not apply to collection of business or commercial debt. See, e.g., Munk v. Federal Land Bank of Witchita, 791 F.2d 130 (10th Cir. 1986).[3] c. The Act applies only to "debt collectors. " The proscriptions of the Act apply only to a limited group of persons or ......