WAGSTAFF v. USA
Filing
43
PUBLISHED MEMORANDUM OPINION and FINAL ORDER granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment and finding as moot 38 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Government. Signed by Judge Susan G. Braden. (dls) Copy to parties.
ORIOI[\IAL
l|n
tbe @nrte!
$tstes @ourt of JfeDers[ @tsfms
No. 11-466C
Filed: July 31,2013
TO BE PUBLISHEI)
*,t * * * * * * * * * * *,f
{. i.
* rr,*'t *
*,
* * *,1 * * * * * * * * * *
Plaintiff, pro se,
THE TINITED STATES,
Defendant.
*!**** *** **** *,t+* *,1* * **** ******
Audrey S, Wagstaff,
31
2013
Pro Se;
U.S. COURT OF
Takings;
FEDERAL CLAIMS
Illegal exactions;
Motion for Summary Judgment, RCFC
56(c);
U.S.C. S 3720A (2006) (authorizing tax
31
refund offsets against taxpayers who owe
debts to federal agencies);
31 U.S.C. $ 3720D (2006) (authorizing wage
gamishments against persons who owe
debts to federal agencies);
Fed. R. Evid. 902(4) (certified copies of
public records);
RCFC 3a(a)(1) (authorizing inspection of
original documents).
AUDREY S. WAGSTAFF,
*
JUL
*
,1.
FILED
*
*****
San Antonio, Texas, Plaintiff,
pro
se.
Russell J. Upton, United States Department of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, Washington, D.C., Counsel for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER
BRADEN,,/adge
This case is the sixth in a series of cases involving pro se Plaintiff Audrey S. Wagstaff
("Plaintiff') and the Depa(ment of Education, all regarding Plaintiff s student loans. On August
30, 1999, the Department of Education sued Plaintiff in the United States District Court for the
Westem District of Texas, seeking repayment of the principal and interest due on Plaintiff s
student loans. See Complaint, United States v. Wagstffi No. 5:99-cv-00960 (W.D. Tex. Aug.
30, lggg), ECF No. | ("Ilagstaff I'). That case voluntarily was dismissed by the Department of
Education on May 30, 2000, but the Department of Education subsequently initiated
administrative proceedings that resulted in Plaintiff s wages being administratively gamished
and her federal tax refunds offset to recover the loan balance and associated interest.
On December 29,2005, Plaintiff sued the Department of Education in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that the Department of Education
violared the Fair Debt collecrion Pracrices Act ("FDCPA"), Pub. L. No. 95-109, l5 U.S.C. $$
1692-1692p (2006). See lhagstafv. Dep't of Educ., No. 5:05-cv-01245 (W.D' Tex. Feb. 15,
2007) (lhgstaffll). That action was dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction, and the United States
for the Fifth Circuit
Court
of
I,
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEDURAL HISTORY.'
subsequently affirmed the dismissal. See
lVagstaff v. Dep't of Educ.,509 F.3d 661 (5th Cir. 2007) ("Wagstaff III')' On October 31' 2008'
Plaintiff again sued the Departrnent of Education, this time in Texas state court, but the lawsuit
was removed to federal district court and again dismissed. See Wagstaffv. Dep't of Educ., No.
5:08-cv-00923 (W.D. Tex. Apr.22,2009) (" IYagstaff IIr). That decision was also appealed and
upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See llagstaff v. Dept. of
Educ.,366 F. App'x 564 (5th Cir.2010) (unpublished) ("llagstaffln). Plaintiffnow seeks relief
from this court.
Appeals
A.
In
1991-1993 And
Defaulted On The Notes, And The Department Of Education Attempted To
Collect.
Plaintiff Signed Six Student Loan Promissory Notes
Between January 1991 and February 1993, Plaintiff signed promissory notes for four
stafford Loans and two Supplemental Loans for students ('sLS) to attend our Lady of the
Lake University in San Antonio, Texas. Compl. Exs. 1-6 i'tft" ti* promissory notes";.2 The
total principal amount of the promissory notes due is $17,000.00, and each note indicates that it
was approved and disbursed by Bank One, Texas, N.A. Compl. Exs. l-6. Following Plaintiff s
graduation in May 1993, she was employed through at least February, 2007 , if not later, but to
dale has made no voluntary payments on any ofthese loans' See lyagstaff II at8.
I The facts discussed herein were derived from: the July 18, 2011 Complaint ("Compl.")
and attachments thereto; attachments to the Declaration of S. Dawn Scaniffe ("Scaniffe Decl.")
filed with Defendant's ("the Govemment's") August 9,2012 Motion For Summary Judgment
(,,Gov't S.J. Mot. Att. A-TT"); the February 15,2007 Memorandum Decision And order from
the United States District Court for the Westem District of Texas in lVagstaff II (reproduced at
Exhibit A of the Govemment's November 14,2011 Motion To Dismiss) and filings associated
with that case; and from judicial opinions in llagstalf III-V.
2
The six oromissory notes are summarized in the chart below:
Date Signed
0t/171199r
09t031r991
02118/1992
09128/1992
0912811992
01/1211993
Total
Compl. Exs. 1-6.
Date
Processed Amount
01ll'111991
0913011991
0310511992
1011611992
t0/16/1992
0210811993
Loan TYPe
$4,000 Stafford
$3,000 Stafford
$2,000 Stafford
$4.000 Stafford
sLS
$3.000
sLS
$1,000
$17.000
Source
Compl. Ex. 1
Compl. Ex. 2
Compl. Ex. 3
Compl. Ex. 4
Compl. Ex. 5
Compl. Ex. 6
Plaintiff s "student loans were guaranteed by the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan
Corporation C'TGSLC) and then reinsured by the Department of Education under federal loan
guaranty programs." lVagstaff II at 8. "[]n August 1995, after the TGSLC was unable to collect
from [P]laintiff, it assigned its right and title to the loans to the Department of Education."
Ilagstaff II at 8. Pursuant to a May 22, 1995 Notice from the Department of the Treasury
("Treasury"), Plaintiffs 1994 income tax refund was offset to recover funds the Department of
Education paid as a result of Plaintiffs nonpayment ofher student loans, plus associated interest.
Compl. fl 46. Plaintiff s income tax refund also was offset for the 1998 ta>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?