United States v. Wilson, Civil Action No. 15-11794

• Decision Date: 31 May 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 15-11794
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NORMAN L. WILSON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
NORMAN L. WILSON, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 15-11794

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

May 31, 2016

Honorable David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT THE GOVERMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [9]

I. RECOMMENDATION

The United States of America (the "government") commenced this action against defendant Norman Wilson ("Wilson") after he allegedly defaulted on a federally guaranteed student loan. [1]. Before the Court is the government's motion for summary judgment, to which Wilson filed a response [9, 13]. The government did not file a reply. The motion was referred to this Court for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and the Court held a hearing on May 24, 2016. Counsel for the government appeared at the hearing, but Wilson did not. [8]. For the following reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the government's motion [9] be GRANTED.

II. REPORT

A. Background

On March 10, 1988, Wilson executed a promissory note to secure a student loan from First American Savings, Inc. ("First American"). [9, Ex A. at Pg IDs 34-35]. The loan was disbursed for $2,625 at 8 percent annual interest. [Ex. B. at Pg ID 36]. The loan was guaranteed

Page 2

by the Higher Education Assistance Foundation ("HEAF"), and insured by the Department of Education under loan guaranty programs authorized under Title IV-B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1071 et seq. (34 C.F.R. § 682.100). [9, Ex A. at Pg IDs 34-35; Ex. B. at Pg ID 36]. Wilson defaulted on the obligation on June 1, 1989. [9, Ex. B at Pg ID 36]. HEAF paid the claim, and was unable to collect the amount owed. HEAF then assigned its right and title to the loan to the government. [Id.]. As of May 19, 2015, the government calculates that Wilson owed $6,751.01 on the outstanding debt. [9 at Pg ID 28].

In its motion for summary judgment, the government argues that Wilson has not made any payments towards the outstanding balance. Appended to the motion are copies of the signed promissory note, the certificate of indebtedness dated December 17, 1997, and the sworn affidavit of a Department of Education loan analyst authenticating the certificate of indebtedness as a legitimate business record. [9, Exs. A-C].

B. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the Court will grant summary judgment if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Pittman v. Cuyahoga County Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 640 F.3d 716, 723 (6th Cir. 2011). A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the case under governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the Court assumes the truth of the non-moving party's evidence and construes all reasonable inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d 461, 464 (6th Cir. 2006).

Page 3

The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motion, and must identify particular portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986); Alexander v. CareSource, 576 F.3d 551, 558 (6th Cir. 2009). "Once the moving party satisfies its burden, 'the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts showing a triable issue.'" Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446, 453 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). In response to a summary judgment motion, the opposing party may not rest on its pleadings, nor "'rely on the hope that the trier of fact will disbelieve the movant's denial of a disputed fact' but must make an affirmative showing with proper evidence in order to defeat the motion." Alexander, 576 F.3d at 558 (internal quotations omitted).

C. Analysis

To recover on a promissory note, the government must initially make a prima facie showing that "(1) the defendant signed it, (2) the government is the present owner or holder, and (3) the note is in default." United States v. Petroff-Kline, 557 F.3d 285, 290 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Lawrence, 276 F.3d 193, 197 (5th Cir. 2001)). The government may establish "a prima facie case that it is entitled to collect on a promissory note [by introducing] the promissory note and a certificate of indebtedness signed under penalty of perjury by a loan analyst." Guillermety v. Sec'y of Educ., 341 F. Supp. 2d 682, 688 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (citing U.S. v. Davis, 28 F. App'x 502, 503 (6th...