United States v. Donald B. Phillips

Good Law
20 F.3d 1005·94 Daily Journal DAR 4243·1994 WL 103089·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 5941·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2248
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 31, 199493-16522California805 words

Opinion

Opinion

Donald B. Phillips appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States in the government’s action to recover on several defaulted student loans. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 , 110 S.Ct. 3217 , 110 L.Ed.2d 664 (1990), and we affirm.

Phillips contends the government’s action is barred by the statute of limitations. The United States contends that the action is not time-barred because the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991 (HETA), Pub.L. No. 102-26,105 Stat. 123 (1991) (codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)), eliminated all statutes of limitation on actions to recover on defaulted student loans and thereby revived this action against Phillips. We agree.

Prior to HETA, the statute of limitations period for suits to recover on defaulted student loans was six years, commencing from the date the loan was assigned to the Department of Education. See Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), Pub.L. No. 99-272 (1986) (codified at 20…

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.