From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Lawrence

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 13, 2001
276 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2001)

Summary

holding that a loan analyst's affidavit based on personal knowledge of certain loan records is admissible summary judgment evidence

Summary of this case from RBC Real Estate Finance, Inc. v. Partners Land Development, Ltd.

Opinion

No. 01-50236 Summary Calendar.

December 13, 2001.

Harold O'Hanlon Atkinson, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robyn Ashley Frohlin, Lawrence Alan Waks, Jackson Walker, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before JOLLY, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.



Robert Lawrence appeals a summary judgment for the United States in its suit to enforce four promissory notes. Lawrence argues that the district court erred in refusing to apply the affirmative defense of laches, in finding that the government had provided competent summary judgment evidence, and in concluding that Lawrence's affidavit did not raise genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. Finding no error, we affirm.

I.

From 1975 to 1978, Lawrence executed four promissory notes totaling $9,500 to obtain student loans that initially were made by Lake Air National Bank and then were assigned to the United States Department of Education ("DOE"). Lawrence defaulted on these loans in 1980; in 2000, the United States sued to collect a debt of $22,389.79. Lawrence's answer raised the defense of laches and asserted that the debt had been paid in full.

This consisted of $9,464.30 principal, $87.00 administrative costs, and $12,838.49 interest due through November 2, 1999.

With its motion for summary judgment, the United States submitted copies of the four notes and assignments, four certificates of indebtedness (signed statements by a DOE loan analyst certifying that DOE's records listed the debt as unpaid), computerized loan records, and an affidavit from DOE loan analyst Deloris Gorham authenticating the submitted loan records. Lawrence's response argued that the notes and certificates were not competent summary judgment evidence. He asserted that the notes were not authenticated, and the certificates were not based on personal knowledge and did not purport to show the affiant was competent. Lawrence submitted only his own affidavit in opposition to the government's motion. In its reply, the government supplemented Gorham's statement with a more detailed affidavit.

II.

We review a summary judgment de novo, NCNB Tex. Nat'l Bank v. Johnson, 11 F.3d 1260, 1264 (5th Cir. 1994), applying the same standard as did the district court, Deas v. River W., L.P., 152 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 1998). "Summary judgment is proper when no issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Questions of fact are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and questions of law are reviewed de novo." Id.

Lawrence argues that the district court erred when it refused to apply the defense of laches and held that 20 U.S.C. § 1091a retroactively eliminated all statutes of limitations and laches defenses for collection of student loans. Section 1091a states,

It is the purpose of this subsection to ensure that obligations to repay loans and grant overpayments are enforced without regard to any Federal or State statutory, regulatory, or administrative limitation on the period within which debts may be enforced. . . . [N]o 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 by . . . the Attorney General . . . for the repayment of the amount due from a borrower on a loan made under this subchapter.

20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(1), (2)(D).

Although we have never directly addressed this question, several other circuits have held that § 1091a negates any limitations defense. Today we follow those circuits that have decided the issue and conclude that § 1091a eliminates all limitations defenses for collection of student debts. Further, we adopt the district court's holding that § 1091a also extends to eliminate the equitable defense of laches.

Millard v. United Student Aid Funds, 66 F.3d 252, 252 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Glockson, 998 F.2d 896, 897 (11th Cir. 1993); United States v. Hodges, 999 F.2d 341, 341-42 (8th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Durbin, 64 F.Supp.2d 635, 637 (S.D.Tex. 1999).

III.

Lawrence contends that the copies of the promissory notes and assignments were not competent summary judgment evidence because they were not properly authenticated as required by FED.R.CIV.P. 56(e) and FED.R.EVID. 902(11). The point is moot. In his affidavit and answer, Lawrence concedes that he applied for and was granted the loans and that he signed the notes.

Lawrence further argues that the certificates of indebtedness were not competent evidence because they were not based on personal knowledge and did not affirmatively show that the affiant was competent as required by rule 56(e), and the statements that the DOE's records showed Lawrence was in debt constituted "conclusory hearsay statements." If any such defects did exist, Gorham's supplemental affidavit cured them.

Rule 56(e) reads, "Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein."

Gorham testified that as a loan analyst, she is familiar with how the DOE maintains records related to student loans, that she was in custody and control of Lawrence's student loan records, that these records are kept in the course of DOE's regularly conducted student loan business, that the promissory notes are "true copies of the documents transmitted to DOE by the Lake Air National Bank," and that DOE took assignment of the loans. Gorham's affidavit satisfies the requirements of both rule 56(e) and the "business records exception" to the hearsay rule, FED. R.EVID. 803(6). Lawrence does not contest the competency of the affidavit, so the district court did not err in relying on it in granting summary judgment.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Camp, 965 F.2d 25, 29 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding rule 56(e) satisfied by affidavit attesting to personal knowledge that plaintiff took ownership of note, even though affiant "had no precise personal knowledge of this particular note").

FED.R.EVID. 803(6) states that

the following are not excluded by the hearsay rule . . . Records of Regularly Conducted Activity. — A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness. . . .

IV.

Lawrence argues that summary judgment was improper because his affidavit raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the loans had been paid in full. 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. FDIC v. Selaiden Builders, Inc., 973 F.2d 1249, 1254 (5th Cir. 1993). Because the government produced sufficient evidence to satisfy its summary judgment burden, the burden shifted to Lawrence to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial," not just to "rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading." Camp, 965 F.2d at 29 (quoting rule 56(e)).

Lawrence's only response was an affidavit testifying that in "approximately 1981," a third party, Oscar Peterson, paid Lawrence's debts for him. Lawrence produced no evidence of this payment. Peterson is now dead, and Lawrence has no documentation confirming Peterson's repayment of the loans; it does not seem any such evidence exists. Such self-serving allegations are not the type of "`significant probative evidence'" required to defeat summary judgment.

Munitrad Sys., Inc. v. Standard Poor's Corp., 672 F.2d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 1982) (quoting Ferguson v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d 111, 114 (5th Cir. 1978)).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Lawrence

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 13, 2001
276 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2001)

holding that a loan analyst's affidavit based on personal knowledge of certain loan records is admissible summary judgment evidence

Summary of this case from RBC Real Estate Finance, Inc. v. Partners Land Development, Ltd.

holding that 20 U.S.C. § 1091a "eliminates all limitations defenses for collection of student debts"

Summary of this case from United States v. Machinski

holding that without documentary evidence of payment of a loan, a non-movant party's self-serving affidavit stating that the loan was paid was not the type of 'significant probative evidence' required to defeat summary judgment

Summary of this case from Reyes v. Julia Place Condos. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.

holding that an affidavit containing a recitation of fact that could not be proved at trial was but a self-serving allegation, and was not of the type of significant probative evidence required to defeat summary judgment

Summary of this case from Austen v. Weatherford Coll. of the Parker Cnty. Junior Coll. Dist.

holding that, to prevail on its case to recover on a promissory note, "the government must show the defendant signed it, the government is the present owner or holder, and the note is in default"

Summary of this case from United States v. Bielinski

holding that § 1091a "extends to eliminate the equitable defense of laches"

Summary of this case from Hamilton v. U.S.

holding that the district court properly relied on the promissory notes and assignment documents in granting summary judgment

Summary of this case from Sommers v. Comerica Bank, N.A. (In re Terrabon, Inc.)

finding that an affidavit testifying that a third party paid the defendant's debt for him was not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether loans had been paid in full, as the defendant produced no evidence of the payment

Summary of this case from C.R. Pittman Constr. v. Nat'l Fire Ins.

finding that an affidavit testifying that a third party paid the defendant's debt for him was not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether loans had been paid in full, as the defendant produced no evidence of the payment

Summary of this case from C.R. Pittman Const. Co. v. Nat. Fire Ins.

finding that the defendant's self-serving statement in an affidavit that a third party had paid his debts for him, without any supporting documentation, when he was required to provide an issue of material fact that the debt had been paid, was insufficient to survive summary judgment

Summary of this case from United States v. Solvay S.A.

concluding that 20 U.S.C. § 1091a "eliminates all limitations defenses for collection of student debts" and that it "also extends to eliminate the equitable defense of laches."

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Simon

affirming summary judgment for the plaintiff when defendant's only evidence in opposition was his own "self-serving allegations"

Summary of this case from Salazar v. Lubbock Cnty. Hosp. Dist.

affirming summary judgment for plaintiff where defendant's only evidence consisted of "self-serving allegations," which "are not the type of significant probative evidence required to defeat summary judgment"

Summary of this case from Tyler v. Cedar Hill Independent Sch. Dist

affirming summary judgment for the plaintiff when defendant's only evidence in opposition was his own "self-serving allegations"

Summary of this case from Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corp.

affirming summary judgment for the plaintiff when defendant's only evidence in opposition was his own "self-serving allegations"

Summary of this case from Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corp.

affirming summary judgment for plaintiff where defendant's only evidence consisted of "self-serving allegations," which "are not the type of significant probative evidence required to defeat summary judgment"

Summary of this case from Directv, Inc. v. Budden

affirming summary judgment for plaintiff where defendant's only evidence consisted of “self-serving allegations, ” which “are not the type of significant probative evidence required to defeat summary judgment”

Summary of this case from Guillory v. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. of Hartford

affirming summary judgment for plaintiff when defendant's only evidence in opposition was his own "self-serving allegations"

Summary of this case from Gonzalez v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co.

affirming summary judgment where the only evidence offered by the nonmoving party was his own affidavit and noting that "such self-serving allegations are not the type of significant probative evidence required to defeat summary judgment."

Summary of this case from Wheeler v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.

affirming summary judgment for plaintiff where defendant's only evidence consisted of "self-serving allegations," which "are not the type of significant probative evidence required to defeat summary judgment"

Summary of this case from Floyd v. Kelly Servs.

affirming summary judgment for plaintiff where defendant's only evidence consisted of "self-serving allegations," which "are not the type of significant probative evidence required to defeat summary judgment"

Summary of this case from United States v. Cabelka

affirming summary judgment for plaintiff where defendant's only evidence consisted of "self-serving allegations," which "are not the type of significant probative evidence required to defeat summary judgment"

Summary of this case from Jones v. Anderson

affirming summary judgment for plaintiff where defendant's only evidence consisted of "self-serving allegations," which "are not the type of significant probative evidence required to defeat summary judgment"

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. Bexar Cnty. Hosp. Dist.

affirming summary judgment for plaintiff where defendant's only evidence consisted of "self-serving allegations," which "are not the type of significant probative evidence required to defeat summary judgment"

Summary of this case from Berry v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

affirming summary judgment for plaintiff where defendant's only evidence consisted of "self-serving allegations," which "are not the type of significant probative evidence required to defeat summary judgment"

Summary of this case from Harris v. U. S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
Case details for

U.S. v. Lawrence

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert LAWRENCE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Dec 13, 2001

Citations

276 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2001)

Citing Cases

Highland Capital Mgmt. v. NexPoint Asset Mgmt. (In re Highland Capital Mgmt.)

If the movant makes out a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate the existence…

United States v. Villanueva

To recover on a promissory note, the government must show that (1) a defendant signed the note; (2) the…