United States v. Richard M. Frisk

Good Law
675 F.2d 1079·3 Educ. L. Rep. 884·1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19632
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 30, 198280-4583California2,069 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richard M. Frisk, the co-obligor on his son’s federally insured student loan, defaulted along with his son on the note. Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Insured Student Loan Program, the lending institution assigned the note to the United States and the Government discharged Frisk’s obligation. The Government brought suit on the note and Frisk defended by alleging that the suit was barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations. The district court, 530 F.Supp. 238 , concluded that the action was not time-barred and granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

I. FACTS

On October 26, 1970, Frisk’s son, Jerome, received a $1,000 student loan from the Bank of America under the Federal Insured Student Loan Program (FISLP). The loan was co-signed by Frisk. The loan terms provided that repayment of principal and interest was to be made over a period beginning nine months after the date on which the maker (Jerome) ceased to carry at least one-half the normal full-time academic work load. Jerome graduated on June 4, 1972.

In addition to the minimum nine-month grace period provided for in the note and mandated by 20 U.S.C. § 1077 (a)(2)(B), (1976)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.