From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Irby

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 24, 1975
517 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1975)

Summary

holding that after the United States establishes its prima facie case, defendant bears the burden of showing payments made on the promissory note which were not properly credited

Summary of this case from United States v. Morrissey

Opinion

No. 74-2957.

June 24, 1975.

Robert E. Hauberg, U.S. Atty., Joseph E. Brown, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.

Joseph Sam Owen, Hollis C. Thompson, Jr., Joel Blass, Gulfport, Miss., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Before CLARK, Associate Justice, and GOLDBERG and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

Of the Supreme Court of the United States (Retired), sitting by designation.


This suit was brought by the United States of America on behalf of its agency, Small Business Administration (SBA), against defendants, Joseph H. Irby and his wife Ruth C. Irby, for a deficiency judgment growing out of a loan by SBA to Industrial Steel Machine Works, Inc. in the principal sum of $200,000, which loan was unconditionally guaranteed by the individual defendants. The Government alleges that default occurred in the making of payments and that the balance due on the original obligation is the principal sum of $65,568.73 plus interest.

The defendants filed answer in which they admitted that the loan had been made and that the note and guaranty instrument had been executed by defendants, but they denied default of the terms of the promissory note and denied being liable to plaintiff in the sum sued upon, and accordingly they sought dismissal of the suit.

Pretrial order was entered disclosing that the issues on which the case was to be tried involved the balance due under the note, the proper amount of any deficiency, and the method used in selling the properties securing the debt, under foreclosure sale.

At the trial it was stipulated between the parties that a default occurred under the terms of the note. The Government introduced into evidence the original promissory note, the guaranty agreement executed by the defendants, and an authenticated transcript of the account sworn to by the appropriate officer of SBA. The Government then rested and defendants moved to dismiss the suit on the basis that the Government had not met the burden of proving the amount of the deficiency and had not proved how the amount was arrived at and what credits were given against the obligation. The Government responded that a prima facie case had been proven by introduction of the exhibits, including the note, guaranty and authenticated transcript of account. The district court held, however, on the basis of defendants' denial of the amount claimed, that it was the Government's further duty to prove all credits given to defendants; that the Government had the "duty to proved how they arrived at the credits they have given them on it." The court also held that "it would be the duty of the Government to show how each one of the credits were allocated to that note." The motion of defendants to dismiss was granted on the basis of the Government's failure to make such proof.

We hold that the court erred in holding the Government to such a burden of proof and in dismissing the suit, for the Government's prima facie case was clearly established by introduction of the note, the guaranty, and the sworn transcript of account. See Southern Glass and Builders Supply Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 398 F.2d 109.

The court erroneously ruled that the Government had the burden of showing whether all appropriate credits to the account had been given, whereas the burden should have been placed upon the defendants under the defense specifically set up in their answer that they "deny that proper amounts were credited on the promissory note sued upon." (Defendants' Answer, paragraph 6.)

Under the circumstances the judgment herein must be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed here. The district court shall accord the parties the right to file such amendments to their pleadings as may be required and the case shall proceed to trial with the parties being given the right to offer such further and additional evidence as may be relevant and appropriate under the circumstances.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

United States v. Irby

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 24, 1975
517 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1975)

holding that after the United States establishes its prima facie case, defendant bears the burden of showing payments made on the promissory note which were not properly credited

Summary of this case from United States v. Morrissey

holding the government's prima facie case of loan default was clearly established by introduction of the promissory note, the guaranty agreement, and a sworn transcript of the account by an appropriate government officer, finding erroneous the district court's determination that the government had not met its burden, based solely on the defendants' denials and demands for more specific proof

Summary of this case from United States v. Taibi

ruling that once the Government establishes a prima facie case in a foreclosure proceeding, the Government need not also demonstrate that every credit has been correctly applied to the notes underlying a mortgage

Summary of this case from United States v. Davidson

determining that a prima facie case had been established where the plaintiff creditor had introduced the note, the guaranty, and a sworn transcript of account

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Pognon

reversing district court's holding that it was the government's duty to "prove all credits given to defendants; that the [g]overnment had the 'duty to prove how they arrived at the credits they have given them on it,'" and holding that the government established its prima facie case through "introduction of the note, the guaranty, and the sworn transcript of account"

Summary of this case from United States v. Machinski

stating the same elements in a suit to collect on a defaulted small business loan

Summary of this case from United States v. Foreman

stating the same elements in a suit to collect on a defaulted small business loan

Summary of this case from United States v. Hennigan

In Irby, the plaintiff established its prima facie case to collect on the note, but the district court held, "on the basis of [the] defendant's denial of the amount claimed, that it was the [plaintiff's] further duty to prove all the credits given to [the] defendants."

Summary of this case from United States v. Reed
Case details for

United States v. Irby

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH H. IRBY AND RUTH…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jun 24, 1975

Citations

517 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1975)

Citing Cases

States of America v. Grieshaber

The burden then shifts to the adverse party, who is required to show the nonexistence, extinguishment, or…

United States v. Reed

To discharge her burden, she must point to specific evidence that raises a fact issue concerning whether the…