United States of America v. Williams

Filing 22

ORDER granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Closing Case. Motions Terminated: 14 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by United States of America. Signed by Judge Marcia G. C ooke on 6/29/2015. (tm) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 14-22054-Civ-COOKE/TORRES
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY WILLIAMS,
Defendant.
________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CASE is before me on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 14). On February 3, 2015, I directed Defendant to respond, by March 3,
2015, to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and to the Complaint, and
advised Defendant that failure to respond “may result in the Court granting the
motion and entering judgment against him.” (ECF No. 16). On May 19, 2015, I
entered an Order to Show Cause requiring Defendant to show cause within fourteen
days why Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. (ECF
No. 19). To date, Defendant has not responded to the Complaint, the Motion for
Summary Judgment, or the Order to Show Cause.
I.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

The record demonstrates that the following material facts are undisputed. On
or about February 24, 1988 and June 14, 1988, Defendant executed promissory notes
to secure student loans of $2,625.00 and $2,625.00 from Glendale Federal at 8.0
percent interest per annum. (ECF Nos. 14-1, 14-2). The Florida Department of
Education, Office of Student Financial Assistance, guaranteed Defendant’s loan
obligations, which were then reinsured by the U.S. 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. Part 682). (ECF No. 14-2).
1

The holder, Glendale Federal, demanded payment according to the terms of
the promissory notes and credited $0.00 to the outstanding principal owed on the
loans. (ECF No. 14-2). The Defendant defaulted on the loan obligations on May 8,
1990 and May 7, 1990. (Id.).
Due to the default, the guaranty agency, Florida Department of Education,
paid a claim in the amount of $5,607.29 to the holder, Glendale Federal. (Id.). The
guarantor was then reimbursed for that claim payment by the U.S. Department of
Education under its reinsurance agreement. (Id.). The guarantor attempted to collect
the debt from Defendant; however, the guarantor was unable to collect the full
amount due. (Id.). On November 18, 1998, the guarantor assigned its right and title
to the Defendant’s defaulted loans to the U.S. Department of Education. (Id.).
The U.S. Department of Education has credited a total of $0.00 in payments
from all sources, including Treasury Department offsets, if any, to the balances on
the loan obligations. (Id.). The Certificate of Indebtedness reflects that after
application of all payments, the balance Defendant owed to the U.S. Department of
Education as of October 29, 1999 is $8,894.16 ($5,510.37 in principal plus $3,383.79
in interest). (Id.). Interest continues to accrue on said principal balance at a rate of
$1.21 per day. (Id.). To date, Defendant has not made any payments or entered into
a payment plan on his loan obligations.
Defendant has failed to raise any affirmative defenses to this action, and has
not disputed that he is in default.
II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Summary judgment is proper if 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).
The movant has the burden of demonstrating through depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations, admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials, the absence of any genuine material,
factual dispute. Id. Even where the nonmovant fails to respond to a motion for
summary judgment, the court must still review the motion and the supporting papers
to determine whether there are no material facts in dispute and whether the movant
is entitled to judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3) (“If a party fails to properly

2

support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of
fact…the court may…grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting
materials - including the facts considered undisputed – show that the movant is
entitled to it”); Trustees of Central Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Engineers and
Participating Employers v. Wolf Crane Service, Inc., 374 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (11th Cir.
2004).
III.

ANALYSIS

“To recover on a promissory note, the government must show (1) the
defendant signed it, (2) the government is the present owner or holder, and (3) the
note is in default.” U.S. v. Lawrence, 276 F.3d 193, 197 (5th Cir. 2001). By presenting
the promissory notes and certificate of indebtedness, Plaintiff has met its burden of
proof on summary judgment. Id.; U.S. v. Ashanti, No. 3:10cv42/MCR/EMT, 2010
WL 5510074, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2010 ) (stating that government can establish
elements of breach of promissory note by producing the promissory note and a
certificate of indebtedness signed under penalty of perjury by a loan analyst).
Defendant has failed to rebut Plaintiff’s evidence.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of June
2015.

Copies furnished to:
Edwin G. Torres, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of record
Timothy Williams, Pro Se
16465 N.E. 22 Avenue, #511
North Miami Beach, Fl 33160

3