U.S. v. Culver, 90-3001

Citation958 F.2d 39
Decision Date02 March 1992
Docket NumberNo. 90-3001,90-3001
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard S. CULVER, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Jefferson Vaughan Wright, Miles & Stockbridge, Baltimore, Md., argued (Jill S. Talbot, on brief), for defendants-appellants.

Nicole Elizabeth Porter, Asst. Dist. Counsel, Small Business Admin., Baltimore, Md., argued (Breckinridge L. Willcox, U.S. Atty., Larry D. Adams, Asst. U.S. Atty., on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and CACHERIS, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Howard S. Culver and Laura H. Culver (Appellants) appeal from the district court's order denying their motion to vacate the judgment in favor of the United States in this action for the outstanding balance and interest due on a Small Business Administration loan. Finding no error, we affirm.

The Appellants, acting as guarantors for Howard S. Culver, Inc., a now-defunct corporation, executed a note to Union Trust Company in conjunction with the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a $275,000 loan in 1976. The loan was assigned to the SBA in 1979. The note provided that any attorney could appear in any court of record to confess judgment on the note at any time after default without notice or a prejudgment hearing.

The SBA made demand on the outstanding balance of the debt in July 1988, contending that the Appellants were then in default on the loan, but the Appellants did not pay the remaining debt. The United States, acting on behalf of the SBA, brought an action for Judgment by Confession in the district court in June 1989; the district court entered judgment in favor of the United States.

The Appellants moved to vacate the judgment, contending that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. They contended that the loan was in default as early as 1981, that the SBA sent its initial notice of acceleration and demand for full payment to Appellants in 1981, and that Howard Culver, Inc., the primary obligor, filed for bankruptcy in January 1983. The SBA again demanded payment on the note in February, 1983, and filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy court in July 1983. The SBA moved to modify the stay so it could foreclose on the property that provided the security interest for the loan in November 1983. The stay was modified in January 1984, and the SBA held a public sale of the property in September 1984. The SBA was the only bidder, so title to the property was conveyed to it; the property was later resold to a third party. The Appellants contended that the statute of limitations period began to accrue, at the latest, at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy petition in January 1983.

The United States opposed the motion to vacate the judgment. It contended that in October 1984 the Appellants admitted they were still the guarantors of the loan, and offered to negotiate some sort of compromise regarding payment of the balance of the debt. Several times in 1985 the Appellants wrote to the SBA, claiming that they did not yet have the financial information from their accountants necessary to propose a settlement, but that they still wanted to come to an agreement with the SBA regarding payment of the remaining debt. The Appellants submitted financial information to the SBA in 1986 and again offered to negotiate a settlement, but did not make a specific offer. Finally, in July 1988 the SBA made a demand for the remainder of the debt, which it then considered defaulted. The Appellants failed to pay the balance, and the United States filed this action. It contended that the statute of limitations did not begin to accrue until the July 1988 demand for payment.

The district court denied the motion to vacate judgment, holding that the statute of limitations did not begin to accrue until the July 1988 demand for payment, and that the action was filed well before the statute of limitations ran. The Culvers appealed.

The statute of limitations to collect a debt under the SBA Loan Guaranty Program is six years. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2415(a) (West Supp.1991); United States v. Vanornum, 912 F.2d 1023, 1025 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Rollinson, 866 F.2d 1463 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 818, 110 S.Ct. 71, 107 L.Ed.2d 37 (1989). The statute of limitations begins to run at the time of demand on the debt. Vanornum, 912 F.2d at 1026-27. However, in the event of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Bower v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • July 19, 1999
    ... ... from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, and asks us to resolve the question of whether this jurisdiction recognizes a common-law cause of action for ... ...
  • McClenathan v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • May 30, 1996
  • U.S. v. Gordon
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 28, 1996
    ...This limitations period governs an action by the government for money damages under a guaranty. See, e.g., United States v. Culver, 958 F.2d 39, 41 (4th Cir.1991). And, the six-year period starts to run when the "right of action" against the guarantor accrues. Cf. Crown Coat Front Co. v. Un......
  • U.S. v. Hughes Ranch, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • January 21, 1999
    ...2d Sess. (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2502, 2504 (legislative history of section 2415)); United States v. Culver, 958 F.2d 39, 41 (4th Cir.1991) (listing of the debt in a financial statement prepared by the debtor and given to the SBA during settlement negotiations ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Requests for class action certification of medical monitoring claims.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 63 No. 1, January 1996
    • January 1, 1996
    ..."most appropriate"). (37.) Thomas v. FAG Bearings Corp., 846 F.Supp. 1400, 1405 (W.D. Mo. 1994). (38.) 746 F.Supp. at 895. See also Ball, 958 F.2d at 39; Jaffee v. United States, 592 F.2d 712, 715 (3d Cir. 1979) (plaintiff cannot transform claim for damages into equitable action by asking f......

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