Vail v. Brown, 39 F.3d 208 (8th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Vail v. Brown, 39 F.3d 208 (8th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Garcia v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n (ca6, 2015-04-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garcia v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n (2×)
6th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
Vail v. Brown, 39 F.3d 208, 209 (8th Cir.1994) (Department of Veterans Affairs was not obligated, as matter of due process, to hold a pre-deprivation hearing if it provides notice that is “sufficient to permit the [borrower] to participate in the foreclosure sale and to exercise his or her preforeclosure options.”); McCachren v. U.S. Dep’t of Agrie., Farmers Home Admin., 599 F.2d 655, 657 (5th Cir.1979) (landowners entitled to a hearing only if the matter of default is in question).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Clyde C. Freeman and Nancy F. Freeman v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Madison National Bank
D.C. Cir. · 1995 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Ricker v. United States, 417 F.Supp. 133, 138-39 (D.Me.1976) (notice of default stating intent to foreclose is merely a "threat of foreclosure,” not adequate notice of foreclosure) with Vail v. Brown, 841 F.Supp. 909, 914-15 (D.Minn.) (notice of default stating intent to foreclose is adequate notice of foreclosure, even if date and time of foreclosure sale are not specified), aff'd, 39 F.3d 208 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2245 , 132 L.Ed.2d 254 (1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ronnie G. Vail Richard A. Dixon Bruce Lillequist Larry Stanley Daryl L. Cooper Timothy C. Gartland, on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs- Appellants/cross-Appellees
v.
Jesse Brown, or His Successor, Secretary of the Department of Veteran's Affairs, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant
94-1858.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Nov 2, 1994.
39 F.3d 208
Published

39 F.3d 208

Ronnie G. VAIL; Richard A. Dixon; Bruce Lillequist; Larry
Stanley; Daryl L. Cooper; Timothy C. Gartland,
on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs-
Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
v.
Jesse BROWN, or his successor, Secretary of the Department
of Veteran's Affairs, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 94-1858, 94-1860.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 12, 1994.
Decided Nov. 2, 1994.

Davis A. Leen, Seattle, WA, argued, for appellants.

Jennifer H. Zacks, Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, argued, for appellee.

Before BOWMAN, Circuit Judge, LAY, Senior Circuit Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

LAY, Senior Circuit Judge.

1

This case involves a class action brought by military veterans who purchased homes under the Veterans Administration home loan guaranty program. It was originally argued before our Court on June 12, 1991. This Court's opinion modifying the district court's judgment was filed October 8, 1991. See Vail v. Derwinski, 946 F.2d 589 (1991) as amended, 956 F.2d 812 (8th Cir.1992). Without discussing the constitutional arguments submitted, we held that before the VA could obtain a recovery from a veteran under its indemnity contract, the VA must make a good faith attempt to provide reasonable personal notice to the indemnitor of the foreclosure sale. Id. at 594. On remand, the district court revised its opinion. This is an appeal from the district court's new order.[1] The veterans challenge that portion of the district court's order that holds the veterans, although entitled to notice, are not entitled to a structured hearing regarding the deficiency debt.

2

In denying a hearing, the district court stated:

3

The Court finds that a hearing is not, however, required in this case. The notice given, under the terms of this Order, is fully sufficient to permit the veteran to participate in the foreclosure sale and to exercise his or her pre-foreclosure options. In the Court's view, these procedures satisfy the requirements of the Fifth Amendment.

4

We agree with the reasoning of the district court.

5

AFFIRMED.

1

The VA filed a timely cross-appeal on March 24, 1994. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3). The VA voluntarily withdrew its cross-appeal on June 16, 1994