U.S. v. Hodges
| Decision Date | 15 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-2449,93-2449 |
| Citation | 999 F.2d 341 |
| Parties | 84 Ed. Law Rep. 916 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Patsy Ann HODGES, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Patsy Ann Hodges, appeared pro se.
Madeline B. Cole, St. Louis, MO, for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Patsy Ann Hodges appeals from the district court's 1 order granting the government summary judgment in its action to recover a student loan debt.
The material facts are not in dispute. In 1969, Hodges defaulted on her student loans; in 1983, the creditor transferred the defaulted loans to the United States Department of Education; and in 1992, the government sued Hodges.
After Hodges filed a pro se answer admitting the loan and the failure to pay, the government moved for summary judgment. Noting that a six-year statute of limitations was in effect until 1991, the government argued that the 1991 amendment to the Higher Education Act abrogating the six-year statute of limitations applied retroactively and revived old claims. Hodges filed no opposition. The district court agreed that the government's collection action was revived by the 1991 amendment and granted the motion.
The Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991 eliminated the six-year statute of limitations for student loan collections in 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a) (Supp.1991). Section 1091a(a)(2) now reads, in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding any other provision of statute, regulation, or administrative limitation, no limitation shall terminate the period within which suit may be filed, a judgment may be enforced, or an offset, garnishment, or other action initiated or taken ... for repayment of the amount due from a borrower on a loan made under this chapter.
The amendment further provided that it would apply to any actions on defaulted loans pending on or after the date of enactment (April 9, 1991) that were brought before November 15, 1992. The instant action was brought in July 1992.
The Supreme Court held in Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 6 S.Ct. 209, 29 L.Ed. 483 (1885), that the repeal of a statute of limitation on personal debts does not deprive a debtor of property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts faced with suits to recover unpaid student loans that were defaulted on prior to April 1985 have held that these expired actions revived under the 1991 amendment and, relying on Campbell, that the revival was not unconstitutional. See United States v. Keil, 1993 WL 69490 (N.D.Ca.1993) (); United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Thompson
...Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir.1994) (Congress "revived all actions which would have otherwise been time-barred."); U.S. v. Hodges, 999 F.2d 341, 341-42 (8th Cir.1993) (the HEA's abrogation of the six-year statute of limitations for recovery on student loan debts applies retroactively to r......
-
Sibley v. US Dept. of Educ.
...Compl. ¶ 36, retroactive repeal of a limitations period applicable to monetary debts does not violate due process. United States v. Hodges, 999 F.2d 341, 342 (8th Cir.1993) (citing Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 628-29, 6 S.Ct. 209, 213-14, 29 L.Ed. 483 (1885)). Statutes of limitations are......
-
US v. Smith
...period, but also revived all actions which otherwise would have been time-barred. See 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a); see also U.S. v. Hodges, 999 F.2d 341, 341-42 (8th Cir.1993) (government could bring action to recover on defaulted student loan even though loan was defaulted in 1969 and loan was as......
-
U.S. v. McLaughlin, CIV.A. 97-12155-DPW.
...between 1986 and 1991 — were revived. See, e.g., United States v. Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Hodges, 999 F.2d 341, 341-42 (8th Cir.1993); United States v. Glockson, 998 F.2d 896, 896-97 (11th Cir.1993).2 It is within the power of Congress to enact such rev......