20 U.S.C. § 1091a
Statute of limitations, and State court judgments
A judgment of a State court for the recovery of money provided as grant, loan, or work assistance under this subchapter that has been assigned or transferred to the Secretary under this subchapter may be registered in any district court of the United States by filing a certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the assignment or transfer. A judgment so registered shall have the same force and effect, and may be enforced in the same manner, as a judgment of the district court of the district in which the judgment is registered.
This section shall not apply in the case of a student who is deceased, or to a deceased student’s estate or the estate of such student’s family. If a student is deceased, then the student’s estate or the estate of the student’s family shall not be required to repay any financial assistance under this subchapter, including interest paid on the student’s behalf, collection costs, or other charges specified in this subchapter.
A prior section 1091a, Pub. L. 89–329, title IV, § 484A, as added Pub. L. 99–272, title XVI, § 16033,
Another prior section 1091a, Pub. L. 89–329, title V, § 502, as added Pub. L. 90–35, § 2(c),
2008—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 110–315, § 486(1), added par. (3).
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 110–315, § 486(2), added subsec. (d).
1998—Pub. L. 105–244, § 484(1), inserted “, and State court judgments” after “limitations” in section catchline.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–244, § 484(2), added subsec. (c).
1991—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–26 amended subsec. (a) generally, substituting provisions eliminating statute of limitations for student loan collections for provisions establishing six year limitations period for collection of such loans.
Amendment by Pub. L. 105–244 effective
Pub. L. 102–26, § 3(c),
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 104
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Bryana Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2015).
Bryana Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2015). “” 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(b)(1). Con- gress chose not to define the meaning of “reasonable collec- tion costs” in the statute and instead “left it up to the Secre- tary [of Education] to interpret that term through regula- 8 No.”
Guillermety v. Sec'y of Educ. of the United States, 241 F. Supp. 2d 727 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “§ 3716 ; and (3) 20 U.S.C. § 1091a. The Court heard oral argument on July 30, 2002.”
United States v. Donald B. Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1994). “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.”
Mountain Peaks Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Roth-Steffen, 778 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). “Does the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1091a, preempt Minnesota statutes of limitation in collection actions initiated by assignees of named lenders? II.”
United States v. Lawrence, 276 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2001). “Lawrence argues that the district court erred when it refused to apply the defense of laches and held that 20 U.S.C. § 1091a retroactively eliminated all statutes of limitations and laches defenses for collection of student loans.”
State of New York Higher Educ. Servs. Corp. v. Upshur, 252 A.D.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). “Plaintiff thereafter moved for reargument, contending, inter alia, that Supreme Court had inadvertently failed to consider the fact that 20 USC § 1091a 1 preempts the field of guaranteed student loans and eliminates all State Statutes of Limitations for commencing suit, entering…”
United States v. Robbins, 819 F. Supp. 672 (E.D. Mich. 1993). “The present version of 20 U.S.C. § 1091a states in pertinent part: § 1091a.”
Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005). “no limitation shall terminate the period within which suit may be filed, a judgment may be enforced, or an offset, garnishment, or other action initiated or taken," 20 U. S. C. §1091a(a)(2), for the repayment of various student loans, including the loans at issue here,…”
Joseph M. Black, Jr., Tr. v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. & Margaret Spellings, Sec'y of Educ., 459 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2006). “The central issue in this case is whether a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Education that allows the assessment of collection costs on defaulted student loans to be done on a formulaic basis was a permissible implementation of the governing statute, 20 U.S.C. §…”
In Re Schlehr, 290 B.R. 387 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2003). “Fisher testified that ECMC is mandated by 20 U.S.C. § 1091a to assess collection costs, and that the Secretary of Education has mandated the manner in which ECMC assesses collection costs at 34 C.”
United States v. Smith, 862 F. Supp. 257 (D. Haw. 1994). “The United States asserts that the action is not time-barred because the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991 (“HETA”), 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…”
Ascendium Educ. Solutions, Inc. v. Miguel Cardona, 78 F.4th 470 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1091a(b)(1), 1078-6. But in 2019, the Department of Education issued the Rule at issue in this case — 34 C.”
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a) — 29 cases
United States v. Donald B. Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1994). “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.”
United States v. Robbins, 819 F. Supp. 672 (E.D. Mich. 1993). “The present version of 20 U.S.C. § 1091a states in pertinent part: § 1091a.”
United States v. Smith, 862 F. Supp. 257 (D. Haw. 1994). “The United States asserts that the action is not time-barred because the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991 (“HETA”), 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…”
United States v. Brown, 7 F. App'x 353 (6th Cir. 2001).
April Brannan v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 94 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1996).
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Donald B. Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1994). “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.”
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(2) — 15 cases
Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005). “no limitation shall terminate the period within which suit may be filed, a judgment may be enforced, or an offset, garnishment, or other action initiated or taken," 20 U. S. C. §1091a(a)(2), for the repayment of various student loans, including the loans at issue here,…”
Thompson v. New Mexico Student Loan Guarantee Corp. (In Re Thompson), 329 B.R. 145 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2005).
Mountain Peaks Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Roth-Steffen, 778 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). “Does the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1091a, preempt Minnesota statutes of limitation in collection actions initiated by assignees of named lenders? II.”
Guillermety v. Sec'y of Educ. of the United States, 241 F. Supp. 2d 727 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “§ 3716 ; and (3) 20 U.S.C. § 1091a. The Court heard oral argument on July 30, 2002.”
United States v. Henry P. Glockson, 998 F.2d 896 (11th Cir. 1993).
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(2)(B) — 1 case
Mountain Peaks Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Roth-Steffen, 778 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). “Does the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1091a, preempt Minnesota statutes of limitation in collection actions initiated by assignees of named lenders? II.”
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(2)(D) — 6 cases
Mountain Peaks Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Roth-Steffen, 778 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). “Does the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1091a, preempt Minnesota statutes of limitation in collection actions initiated by assignees of named lenders? II.”
Guillermety v. Sec'y of Educ. of the United States, 241 F. Supp. 2d 727 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “§ 3716 ; and (3) 20 U.S.C. § 1091a. The Court heard oral argument on July 30, 2002.”
United States v. Tuerk, 317 F. App'x 251 (3rd Cir. 2009).
Dee Ella Lee v. Margaret Spellings, Sec'y of the Dep't of Educ., 447 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 2006).
Sibley v. United States Dep't of Educ., 913 F. Supp. 1181 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(2)(b) — 1 case
In Re Sprolito, 359 B.R. 423 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2006).
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(4) — 4 cases
Adeline Jones v. Lauro F. Cavazos, Sec'y, United States Dep't of Educ., in His Off. Capacity, & Richard A. Hastings, Etc., 889 F.2d 1043 (11th Cir. 1989).
United States v. Smith, 811 F. Supp. 646 (S.D. Ala. 1992).
United States v. McLaughlin, 7 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D. Mass. 1998).
United States v. Cawley, 821 F. Supp. 1219 (E.D. Mich. 1993).
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(4)(B) — 5 cases
United States v. Distefano, 279 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2002).
United States v. Donald B. Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1994). “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.”
Dee Ella Lee v. Margaret Spellings, Sec'y of the Dep't of Educ., 447 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Smith, 862 F. Supp. 257 (D. Haw. 1994). “The United States asserts that the action is not time-barred because the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991 (“HETA”), 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…”
Dee Ella Lee v. Roderick Paige (8th Cir. 2006).
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(4)(C) — 8 cases
United States v. Stella Menatos, 925 F.2d 333 (9th Cir. 1991).
David Grider & Leon Gladecki v. Lauro Cavazos, Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Educ., 911 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1990).
United States v. Hunter, 700 F. Supp. 26 (M.D. Fla. 1988).
Janet G. Hurst, Plaintiff-Counterclaim v. United States Dep't of Educ., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant, 901 F.2d 836 (10th Cir. 1990).
United States v. Robbins, 819 F. Supp. 672 (E.D. Mich. 1993). “The present version of 20 U.S.C. § 1091a states in pertinent part: § 1091a.”
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(l) — 9 cases
United States v. Lawrence, 276 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2001). “Lawrence argues that the district court erred when it refused to apply the defense of laches and held that 20 U.S.C. § 1091a retroactively eliminated all statutes of limitations and laches defenses for collection of student loans.”
Cota v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (In Re Cota), 298 B.R. 408 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2003).
Guillermety v. Sec'y of Educ. of the United States, 241 F. Supp. 2d 727 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “§ 3716 ; and (3) 20 U.S.C. § 1091a. The Court heard oral argument on July 30, 2002.”
United States v. Smith, 862 F. Supp. 257 (D. Haw. 1994). “The United States asserts that the action is not time-barred because the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991 (“HETA”), 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…”
Mountain Peaks Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Roth-Steffen, 778 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). “Does the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1091a, preempt Minnesota statutes of limitation in collection actions initiated by assignees of named lenders? II.”
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(b) — 11 cases
Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Barnes, 318 B.R. 482 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 2004).
April Brannan v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 94 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1996).
Franklin Coll. v. Turner, 844 N.E.2d 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Jackson v. Culinary Sch. of Washington, 788 F. Supp. 1233 (D.D.C. 1992).
Trs. of Tufts Coll. v. Ramsdell, 554 N.E.2d 34 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990).
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(b)(1) — 7 cases
Bryana Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2015). “” 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(b)(1). Con- gress chose not to define the meaning of “reasonable collec- tion costs” in the statute and instead “left it up to the Secre- tary [of Education] to interpret that term through regula- 8 No.”
Ascendium Educ. Solutions, Inc. v. Miguel Cardona, 78 F.4th 470 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1091a(b)(1), 1078-6. But in 2019, the Department of Education issued the Rule at issue in this case — 34 C.”
In Re Sprolito, 359 B.R. 423 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2006).
Charles R. Estes, et al. v. P ECMC Grp., Inc., 2021 DNH 117 (D.N.H. 2021).
Estes v. ECMC Grp., Inc. (D.N.H. 2021).
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(b)(l) — 10 cases
Bryana Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2015). “” 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(b)(1). Con- gress chose not to define the meaning of “reasonable collec- tion costs” in the statute and instead “left it up to the Secre- tary [of Education] to interpret that term through regula- 8 No.”
Joseph M. Black, Jr., Tr. v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. & Margaret Spellings, Sec'y of Educ., 459 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2006). “The central issue in this case is whether a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Education that allows the assessment of collection costs on defaulted student loans to be done on a formulaic basis was a permissible implementation of the governing statute, 20 U.S.C. §…”
In Re Schlehr, 290 B.R. 387 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2003). “Fisher testified that ECMC is mandated by 20 U.S.C. § 1091a to assess collection costs, and that the Secretary of Education has mandated the manner in which ECMC assesses collection costs at 34 C.”
Tipton v. Sec'y of Educ. of the United States, 768 F. Supp. 540 (S.D.W. Va 1991).
Bryana Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 807 F.3d 839 (7th Cir. 2015).
— 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(c) — 1 case
United States v. Wall, 794 F. Supp. 350 (D. Or. 1992).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.