KATE BUFFY DRAKEWYCK v U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
- Summarized by Leo Weiss , Office of the U.S. Trustee
- 11 months 1 week ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- 23-1236 (10th Circuit, Jan 25,2024) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- Circuit Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of pro se debtor's adversary proceeding which sought to discharge her student loans for failure to timely effectuate service on the United States Attorney and failed to show good cause why the ninety day limit for service under. Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 4(m) should be extended..
- Procedural context:
- Debtor appealed from the dismissal of her adversary proceeding seeking a discharge of her federally insured student loans. The bankruptcy court had denied the debtor's motion for a default judgment for failure to serve all required parties. She had failed to serve the Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado. The court advised her to obtain an alias summons and to serve it on the omitted parties for service. The Debtor served the Attorney General and the District Attorney for the District of Columbia, but not the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado. The bankruptcy court deemed the debtor's efforts to effectuate service to be inadequate and dismissed the case under Rule 4(m) because more than ninety days had passed since the case was filed without adequate service. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the dismissal. The Debtor appealed to the Circuit Court which affirmed the lower courts.
- Facts:
- Circuit Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of pro se debtor's adversary proceeding which sought to discharge her student loans. The Debtor served the Department of Education, a federal agency, but not the Attorney General or the United States Attorney,. The bankruptcy court denied the Debtor's motion for a default judgment for failure to serve the Attorney General and United States Attorney. The Debtor obtained an alias summons which she served on the Attorney General and the District Attorney for the District of Columbia but failed to serve on the U.S. Attorney. The case was dismissed under Rule 4(m) because more than ninety days had passed since the adversary had been filed.
- Judge(s):
- Eid, Matheson and Baldock
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
