United States v. Day

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Day

857 F.2d 1184, 1988 WL 96808

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 22, 1988

DocketNo. 88-1334

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 857 F.2d 1184 (United States v. Day) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Day, 857 F.2d 1184, 1988 WL 96808 (8th Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William A. Day and Helen L. Day appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment to the government in a foreclosure action. We affirm.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) loaned money to the Days under the disaster loan program. 15 U.S.C. § 636(b). In exchange, the Days signed a promissory note and mortgaged their farmland as security for the loan.

The Days were late with their 1980 and 1981 payments. They obtained the SBA’s consent to defer the 1982 payment. After the Days failed to make the deferred payment, the SBA began foreclosure proceedings in the district court. The court granted the SBA’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, the Days claim the SBA abused its discretion when it failed to allow them additional forbearance. We disagree.

Under the disaster loan program, the SBA has discretion to defer loan obli[1185]*1185gations. 15 U.S.C. § 634(e); see also United States v. Don B. Hart Equity Pure Trust, 818 F.2d 1246, 1251-52 (5th Cir.1987). Here, the Days admit the SBA accepted two late payments and deferred a third payment for ten months. The Days also admit the SBA notified them of their default on the deferred payment, but refrained from foreclosing for another nine months. In addition, the record shows the SBA considered the Days’ financial situation before foreclosing on the loan. Under these circumstances, the SBA cannot be said to have abused its discretion.

We affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

William A. Day and Helen L. Day appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment to the government in a foreclosure action. We affirm.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) loaned money to the Days under the disaster loan program. 15 U.S.C. § 636(b). In exchange, the Days signed a promissory note and mortgaged their farmland as security for the loan.

The Days were late with their 1980 and 1981 payments. They obtained the SBA’s consent to defer the 1982 payment. After the Days failed to make the deferred payment, the SBA began foreclosure proceedings in the district court. The court granted the SBA’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, the Days claim the SBA abused its discretion when it failed to allow them additional forbearance. We disagree.

Under the disaster loan program, the SBA has discretion to defer loan obli[1185]*1185gations. 15 U.S.C. § 634(e); see also United States v. Don B. Hart Equity Pure Trust, 818 F.2d 1246, 1251-52 (5th Cir.1987). Here, the Days admit the SBA accepted two late payments and deferred a third payment for ten months. The Days also admit the SBA notified them of their default on the deferred payment, but refrained from foreclosing for another nine months. In addition, the record shows the SBA considered the Days’ financial situation before foreclosing on the loan. Under these circumstances, the SBA cannot be said to have abused its discretion.

We affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

857 F.2d 1184, 1988 WL 96808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-day-ca8-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack