Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Ronnie G. Vail; Richard A. Dixon; Bruce Lillequist; Larrystanley; Daryl L. Cooper; Timothy C. Gartland,on Behalf of All Others Similarlysituated,plaintiffs-appellants/cross-appellees, v. Jesse Brown, or His Successor, Secretary of the Departmentof Veteran's Affairs, Defendant-appellee/cross-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. - 39 F.3d 208
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.
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.
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.
We agree with the reasoning of the district court.
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