Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Vail v. Brown

Vail v. Brown, 39 F.3d 208 (8th Cir. 1994)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1994-11-02
Topic: general

How later courts describe this case

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.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Vail v. Brown. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 3 opinions

VAIL v. BROWN,39 F.3d 208(8th Cir. 1994)

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 October 12, 1994.

Decided November 2, 1994.

Page 209

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

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

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.¹The 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:

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.

[3] We agree with the reasoning of the district court.

[4] AFFIRMED.

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. ↩