United States of America v. Rosentrater
Filing
18
ORDER granting 6 Motion for Summary Judgment (See Order Text). Signed by Senior Judge Donald E OBrien on 3/7/2012. (des)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
No. 11-CV-04069-DEO
v.
ORDER
KAREN R. ROSENTRATER, a/k/a
Karen R. Hanson,
Defendant.
____________________
This matter is before this Court pursuant to the United
States of America’s, Plaintiff’s, motion for summary judgment.
Docket No. 6.
Plaintiff’s initial complaint alleges that
Defendant has defaulted on a Federal Student Loan and seeks a
judgment for collection thereof.
I.
Docket No. 1.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A “court shall 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.”
R.
Civ.
P.
56(a).
A
material
fact
is
one
which
Fed.
“is
significant or essential to the issue or matter at hand.”
Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009), fact.
A genuine
dispute is more than a mere “metaphysical doubt as to the
material
facts;”
it
is
a
“‘genuine need for a trial’.”
dispute
such
that
there
is
a
Matsushita Electric Industrial
Co., v. Zenith Radio Corporation et. al., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87
(1986) (quoting Advisory Committee Note to 1963 Amendment of
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e), 28 U.S.C. App., pg. 626).
There
is no genuine need for a trial when “the record taken as a
whole,” as well as applicable law, “could not lead a rational
trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.’”
Id. at 587
(quoting First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co.,
391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)).
When considering a motion for
summary judgment, a court must view the facts in a light most
favorable to the non-moving party.
In
summary
judgment
disputes,
475 U.S. at 587.
the
movant
bears
the
initial burden “of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion and identifying those portions of the record
which show a lack of a genuine issue.”
Hartnagel v. Norman,
953 F.2d 394, 395 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at
323).
The Plaintiff’s Declaration of Alberto Francisco, a
United States Department of Education Loan Analyst, declares
that Plaintiff executed a promissory note with the United
States Department of Education on October 31, 2000.
No. 6-3, 1.
Docket
It further provides that the United States
remains the holder and owner of the note, and Defendant
defaulted on November 11, 2007.
2
Id.
Plaintiff also provided
the
Application
for
Loan
and
Promissory
Note
signed
by
Defendant, as well as a Certificate of Indebtedness signed
under penalty of perjury and showing Defendant defaulted on
November 11, 2007.
Docket No. 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3.
Thus,
Plaintiff has established a prima facie case.
Once the movant has carried his burden, the non-moving
party is required “to go beyond the pleadings” and through
“affidavits,
or
by
the
‘depositions,
answers
to
interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate specific
facts showing . . . there is a genuine issue for trial.’”
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 423 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).
Defendant resists Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on
the following grounds:
(1) the statute of limitations bars
Plaintiff’s claim; (2) the action has not been initiated by a
proper authority; and (3) Plaintiff has failed to show that
default has occurred.
II.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
28 U.S.C. § 2415(a) provides:
except as otherwise provided by Congress,
every action for money damages brought by
the United States or an officer or agency
thereof which is founded upon any contract
. . . shall be barred unless the complaint
is filed within six years after the right
of action accrues . . . .
3
However, the “Higher Education Technical Amendments of
1991 eliminated the . . . statute of limitations for student
loan collections . . . .”
Docket No. 9-1, 4-5; United States
v. Hodges, 999 F.2d 341, 342 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing 20 U.S.C.
§ 1091a(a)).
20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a) provides:
It is the purpose of this subsection to
ensure that obligations to repay loans . .
. are enforced without regard to any
Federal or State statutory, regulatory, or
administrative limitation on the period
within which debts may be enforced . . .
no limitation shall terminate the period
within which suit may be filed . . . .”
In
this
case,
20
U.S.C.
§1091a(a)
is
controlling.
Notably, 28 U.S.C. 2415(a) provides that it is applicable
“except as otherwise provided by Congress,” and 20 U.S.C. §
1091a(a) provides that it applies “without regard to any
Federal . . . statutory . . . limitation on the period within
which debts may be enforced.”
Furthermore, it is a general
rule of construction that specific statutory provisions are
given effect over general statutory provisions.
Harrell v.
U.S. Postal Service, 445 F.3d 913, 927 (7th Cir. 2006). Thus,
there is no statute of limitations related to student loans,
and Plaintiff cannot be denied summary judgment on this basis.
4
III.
AUTHORITY TO BRING ACTION
20
U.S.C.
§
1091a(a)(2)
limits
its
derogation
of
applicable statutes of limitations to actions initiated by a
group of private institutions with well defined agreements
with the Federal Government, as well as the Secretary of the
Treasury, “the Attorney General, or the administrative head of
another federal agency . . . .”
Apparently, Defendant argues that actions brought in the
“name” of the United States do not qualify.
Docket No. 15, 1.
However, 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(2) specifically states that
actions must be “initiated . . . by . . . the Attorney
General,” not brought in the “name” of the Attorney General.
As Plaintiff’s counsel noted at the hearing of December 8,
2011, his employer is the Attorney General, and, therefore,
this action was properly “initiated or taken by . . . the
Attorney General” in comportment with the requirements of 20
U.S.C. §1091a(a)(2). Furthermore, it is common knowledge that
the legal arm of the United States is the Attorney General’s
Office; and, therefore, actions, whether brought in the name
of the United States or the Attorney General or whether
initiated by the United States or the Attorney General, are
5
ultimately United States’ actions, and so the distinction
Defendant asks this Court to make has no real effect.
IV.
WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ACTUAL DEFAULT
As
previously
noted,
Plaintiff
has
provided
the
Declaration of Alberto Francisco, a United States Department
of Education Loan Analyst, which states Defendant defaulted on
November 11, 2007.
Docket No. 6-3, 1.
Plaintiff also
provided a Certificate of Indebtedness, signed under penalty
of perjury, indicating Defendant defaulted on November 11,
2007.
Docket No. 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3.
Regardless, Defendant, somewhat confusingly, maintains
Plaintiff has failed to show that default has occurred.
Defendant has never maintained that she has honored the terms
of her agreement. In fact, this argument is entirely contrary
to
her
claim
that
the
statute
of
limitations
has
run.
Defendant actually claims that her date of default “was much
earlier than November 11, 2007.”
Docket No. 15, 2.
Since
both parties contend Defendant defaulted, and there is no
statute
of
limitations
-
rendering
the
date
of
default
immaterial - there is no genuine issue as to a material fact.
6
V.
CONCLUSION
The undisputed facts are that Defendant took money from
the Federal Government for her own ends pursuant to a valid
agreement to make repayment, the Government maintained the
right to enforce that agreement, and the Defendant has failed
to honor that agreement.
summary
judgment
is
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for
granted,
and
Defendant
Karen
R.
Rosentrater, a/k/a Karen R. Hanson, is hereby adjudicated
liable to the United States for the sum of $109,393.55, which
includes $80,126.57 principal and $29,266.98 interest, as of
September 19, 2011, plus interest accruing thereafter at a
rate of $18.10 per day, which equals, to this date, $3,077.00,
plus costs of this action in the total amount of $369.00
($350.00 court costs and $19.00 service/complaints costs), and
statutory interest after judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of March, 2012.
__________________________________
Donald E. O’Brien, Senior Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of Iowa
7
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?