U.S. v. Durbin, Civil Action No. H-98-632.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Hughes |
| Citation | 64 F.Supp.2d 635 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Robert R. DURBIN, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. H-98-632. |
| Decision Date | 13 September 1999 |
v.
Robert R. DURBIN, Defendant.
Page 636
M.H. Cersonsky, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.
Judith Rose Purcell, Houston, TX, for Defendant.
HUGHES, District Judge.
1. Introduction.
The government has sued for the amount due on a promissory note issued for a student loan that the government guaranteed. The government will recover its money.
2. Student Loans.
When the student borrowed money for his education, he issued a note. The bank lent the money under a federal program to assist students of post-secondary institutions. Ordinarily, repayment begins nine to twelve months after the student fails to carry at least one-half of the normal full-time course load. Lenders accept these notes because they are fully insured by the government. See Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 1070.
When the student defaults on his repayment, the lender presents the current balance — principal, interest, and costs — to the government agency that guaranteed it. On paying the original lender, the government becomes the lender, and the borrower owes the government directly.
3. Promissory Notes.
A note is an unconditional promise to pay. It is an obligation of the borrower to the lender. The practice and law of notes developed so that people could lend on the credit of a person with confidence that collecting the debt would not be complicated by side issues. As a result of their unconditional, absolute character, loans are both extended in the first place and traded among lenders with no direct knowledge of the original transaction, reducing their cost to the borrowers.
The government must show three things to win: (1) the defendant is the person who issued the note; (2) the government owns the note; and (3) the note is unpaid. In addition to the unpaid amount, the lender may collect attorney's fees under state and federal law. Federal law also allows reasonable administrative and collection costs.
4. Defenses.
The note may be enforced against the borrower unless he can show that he did not issue it or that he paid it. Unlike many other kinds of cases, the borrower largely has the responsibility to produce evidence. Evidence is not simply saying that something is true; evidence is specific facts of when, who, where, and how much as well as supporting records like canceled checks and tax returns. Under state law, a note is enforceable unless the borrower can show that he paid the note or that the note was forged. See
Page 637
generally CAL. COM.CODE div. 3; N.Y. U.C.C. LAW ch. 38, art. 3; TEX. BUS. & COM.CODE ANN. ch. 3.
A....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hennigan, Case No: 6:13-cv-1609-Orl-31DAB
...circuits. See Guillermety v. Secretary of Education of the United States, 341 F.Supp.2d 682 (E.D.Mich. 2003); United States v. Durbin, 64 F.Supp.2d 635 (S.D. Tex.1999); United States v. Wendl, 2012 WL 2601381 (E.D.Mich. May 22, 2012). The Department may establish a prima facie case of stude......
-
United States v. Milford, C/A No. 2:15-CV-2009-RMG-MGB
...unpaid." United States v. Muhilly, No. 6:07-CV-0290-HFF, 2008 WL 220256, at *4 (D.S.C. Jan. 25, 2008) (citing United States v. Durbin, 64 F.Supp.2d 635, 636 (S.D.Tex.1999)). The Defendant signed the promissory note (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 1) on April 20, 1999, and was issued the funds the followi......
-
United States v. Wilson, Civil Action No. 15-11794
...or deferment of the debt." U.S. v. Johnson, No. 02-75044, 2005 WL 1355097, at *3 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2005) (citing U.S. v. Durbin, 64 F. Supp. 2d 635, 636 (S.D. Tex. 1999)). He failed to meet this burden. In response to the government's motion, Wilson submitted the following statement:1. Def......
-
United States v. Foreman, Case No: 6:14-cv-1965-Orl-40DAB
...defendant must produce specific and concrete evidence of the nonexistence, payment, or discharge of the debt. United States v. Durbin, 64 F.Supp.2d 635, 636 (S.D.Tx. 1999); Stanfield, 2001 WL 484069 at 4-9. Cancelled checks, bank statements, and tax records, are the types of documents found......
-
United States v. Hennigan, Case No: 6:13-cv-1609-Orl-31DAB
...circuits. See Guillermety v. Secretary of Education of the United States, 341 F.Supp.2d 682 (E.D.Mich. 2003); United States v. Durbin, 64 F.Supp.2d 635 (S.D. Tex.1999); United States v. Wendl, 2012 WL 2601381 (E.D.Mich. May 22, 2012). The Department may establish a prima facie case of stude......
-
United States v. Milford, C/A No. 2:15-CV-2009-RMG-MGB
...unpaid." United States v. Muhilly, No. 6:07-CV-0290-HFF, 2008 WL 220256, at *4 (D.S.C. Jan. 25, 2008) (citing United States v. Durbin, 64 F.Supp.2d 635, 636 (S.D.Tex.1999)). The Defendant signed the promissory note (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 1) on April 20, 1999, and was issued the funds the followi......
-
United States v. Wilson, Civil Action No. 15-11794
...or deferment of the debt." U.S. v. Johnson, No. 02-75044, 2005 WL 1355097, at *3 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2005) (citing U.S. v. Durbin, 64 F. Supp. 2d 635, 636 (S.D. Tex. 1999)). He failed to meet this burden. In response to the government's motion, Wilson submitted the following statement:1. Def......
-
United States v. Foreman, Case No: 6:14-cv-1965-Orl-40DAB
...defendant must produce specific and concrete evidence of the nonexistence, payment, or discharge of the debt. United States v. Durbin, 64 F.Supp.2d 635, 636 (S.D.Tx. 1999); Stanfield, 2001 WL 484069 at 4-9. Cancelled checks, bank statements, and tax records, are the types of documents found......