USA v. Emanuel a/k/a Defoe

2009 DNH 189

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: December 10, 2009
• Docket: 09-CV-185-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

USA v. Emanuel a/k/a Defoe 09-CV-185-SM 12/10/09 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of A m e r i c a , Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 09-cv-l85-SM Opinion No. 2009 DNH 189 Patricia M. Emanuel a/k/a Patricia D e f o e , Defendant

O R D E R

The government brings this action against the defendant,

Patricia Emanuel, for default on student loans guaranteed under

Title IV—B , 20 U.S.C. § 1071 et s e a . , and Title IV-D, 20 U.S.C.

§ 1087aa et s e a ., of the Higher Education Act of 1965. In its

complaint, the United States alleges that Emanuel executed and

delivered three promissory notes with respect to guaranteed

student loans, and later defaulted on her obligation to pay those

notes. In her answer, Emanuel admits all pertinent factual

allegations in the complaint. The Unites States now moves for

judgment on the pleadings. Emanuel has not filed an objection or

response to the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the

motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

In Count I, the United States alleges that on August 9,

1983, and August 10, 1984, Emanuel executed and delivered two promissary notes payable to Country Bank for Savings ("Country

Bank"), Palmer, Massachusetts, in the total principal amount of

$4,972.00, bearing an interest rate of 9.00% per annum, and

repayable in monthly installments. The notes secured repayment

of student loans authorized by the Federal Family Education Loan

Program (20 U.S.C. § 1071 et s e a . ); the United States guaranteed

repayment of the notes to Country Bank. On November 28, 1985,

Emanuel defaulted on her obligation to pay. Following Emanuel's

default. Country Bank required the United States to pay the loans

in accordance with its guarantee and assigned the notes to the

United States on February 25, 1993.

In Count II, the United States alleges that On September 19,

1983, Emanuel executed and delivered a promissary note payable to

Greenfield Community College ("GCC"), Greenfield, Massachusetts,

in the total principal amount of $600.00, bearing an interest

rate of 5.00% per annum and repayable in monthly installments.

The note secured a Federal Perkins Loan (20 U.S.C. § 1087aa et

s e a . ); the United States guaranteed repayment of the note to GCC.

On July 30, 1985, Emanuel defaulted on her obligation to pay.

Following Emanuel's default, GCC required the United States to

pay the note in accordance with its guarantee and assigned the

note to the United States on June 19, 1989.

2 The United States requests that this court enter judgment on

Count I in the amount of $15,782.24, plus interest, and on Count

II in the amount of $1,256.75, plus interest.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"After the pleadings are closed — but early enough not to

delay trial — a party may move for judgment on the pleadings."

F e d . R. C i v . P. 12(c). "A motion for judgment on the pleadings is

treated much like a Rule 1 2 ( b ) (6) motion to dismiss." Perez-

Acevedo v. R i vero-Cubano. 520 F.3d 26, 29 (1st Cir. 2008)

(citation o m i t t e d ) . "[T]o survive a Rule 1 2 ( b ) (6) motion (and,

by extension, a Rule 12(c) motion) a complaint must contain

factual allegations that ■'raise a right to relief above the

speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in

the complaint are true'." I d . (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In deciding a motion for

judgment on the pleadings, "the court must view the facts

contained in the pleadings in the light most favorable to the

nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom to the

nonmovant's behoof." R.G. Fin. Corp. v. Verqara - N u h e z . 446 F.3d

178, 182 (1st Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). "The court may

supplement the facts contained in the pleadings by considering

documents fairly incorporated therein . . . ." I d . (citations

omitted).

3 III. DISCUSSION

"The [United States] can establish a prima facie case that

it is entitled to collect on a promissory note if it introduces

the promissory note and a certificate of indebtedness signed

under penalty of perjury by a loan analyst." Guillermetv v.

S e c 'v of E d u c ., 341 F. Supp. 2d. 682, 688 (E.D. Mich. 2003)

(citations omitted). In this case, the United States has

included with its complaint a copy of the three promissory notes

executed by Emanuel to secure the student loans, and two

certificates of indebtedness signed under penalty of perjury by a

loan analyst (See document no. 1, E x s . A-D.) Emanuel admits in

her answer that the promissary notes included with the complaint

are notes that she executed to secure educational loans and

admits that she defaulted on her obligation to pay the notes.

Therefore, the pleadings "conclusively establish" that the United

States is entitled to collect from Emanuel on the three

promissory notes. See R.G. F i n . C o r p ., 446 F.3d at 181.

Emanuel asserts as a defense that she suffers from a number

of psychological disorders which prevented her from engaging in

gainful employment for the past twenty years, and, thus, paying

the notes. Emanuel claims that she plans to seek an

administrative discharge of her obligations on grounds of "total

and permanent disability," pursuant to relevant regulations. See

4 34 C.F.R. § 6 8 2 . 4 0 2 ( c ) (1) {"A borrower's loan is discharged if

the borrower becomes totally and permanently disabled . . . and

satisfies the additional eligibility requirements contained in

this section."). Emanuel's defense, however, is not cognizable

in this suit, as "[cjlaims for relief under [the Higher Education

Act] must be presented through the administrative process and

cannot be asserted as defensive claims in civil collection

litigation." Green v. United S t ates. 163 F. Supp. 2d 593, 598

(W.D.N.C. 2000) (citation omitted).

Emanuel asks this court to hold this matter in abeyance

until she can exhaust the available administrative discharge

procedures.1 Holding this matter in abeyance is not necessary.

As the court stated in G r e e n , the administrative discharge

provisions " m a k e [] no distinction between loans that are in the

process of being collected and those reduced to judgment." Id.

at 599. Thus, Emanuel may still pursue an administrative

discharge even if this court reduces her obligations to judgment.

I d . at 598 (stating that reducing borrower's obligation to

judgment would not interfere with his administrative r e m e d y ) ; see

also Nash v. C t . Student Loan Found. (In re N a s h ). 446 F.3d 188,

194 (1st Cir. 2006) (refusing to discharge student loan debt due

1 Although Emanuel claims that she planned to met with her psychiatrist in July of 2009 to begin preparing her discharge application, nothing in the record indicates she has done so.

5 to debtor's bipolar disorder but advising debtor of her right to

pursue an administrative discharge due to d i s a b i l i t y ) . Moreover,

as the United States points out, reducing Emanuel's debt to

judgment "may work in [her] favor," as her loans are accruing

interest at a rate of 9% and 5%, respectively, while the current

judgment rate is less than 1%. See Green, 163 F. Supp. 2d at

599 .

Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings

(document no. 7) is granted.

SO ORDERED.

Steven J / M c A u l i f f e vhief Judge

December 10, 2009

cc: Michael T. McCormack, Esq. Eugene F. Sullivan, III, Esq.