Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02274/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02274-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Ann Harter
Appellant
Rod Paige
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2274

___________

Mary Ann Harter, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Rod Paige, Secretary, United States * [UNPUBLISHED]

Department of Education, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 13, 2005

Filed: May 4, 2005 

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mary Ann Harter, an attorney employed as a teacher by the state of Missouri,

defaulted on three guaranteed student loans she had obtained to fund her law school

education. Under the Federal Family Education Loan Program, the Department of

Education reimbursed the guaranty agency and initiated proceedings to collect the

loan by garnishing Harter’s wages. See 20 U.S.C. § 1095a. The Department sent

Harter a notice of its intent to collect the debt by administrative wage garnishment

(AWG), and Harter asked for a hearing, through her attorney, her husband. Harter

later requested an extension of the hearing date, then failed to respond to the

rescheduling request. The Department left a telephone message stating that if Harter

Appellate Case: 04-2274 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2005 Entry ID: 1898903
*

The Honorable Henry Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

did not call, she would forfeit a hearing. Harter’s attorney conceded at oral argument

that the message was left on the Harters’ home answering machine, but claimed the

contents of the message was unknown because their teenager inadvertently erased it.

 After a written records hearing, the hearing officer issued a decision ordering

garnishment of Harter’s wages. In its decision, the officer considered and rejected

each of Harter’s objections to the garnishment. Most of the objections lacked

evidentiary support.

Harter then filed this action challenging the garnishment decision under the

Administrative Procedure Act and the constitutionality of the Department’s

administrative wage garnishment. The district court*

 denied Harter’s motion to quash

the garnishment, her partial motion for summary judgment, and her motion for a

temporary restraining order. The court granted summary judgment to the Department

on Harter’s request for review of the administrative decision. The court found the

Department’s AWG was constitutional and the Department “established that there

was appropriate notice, but that [Harter] was unresponsive.” The court also observed

Harter failed to submit a statement of uncontroverted material facts and failed to

present any specific evidence to dispute any of the Department’s facts. Instead,

Harter had “attempted to rely on allegations in her pleadings rather than providing

sufficient probative evidence as required under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 56.”

Harter appeals arguing summary judgment was improper. We disagree. The

Department put adequate evidence into the summary judgment record to show Harter

was delinquent on her loans, she was given notice of intent to garnish, she was given

an opportunity to pick a hearing date through her attorney, and her attorney did not

respond. Harter failed to present any evidence to dispute these facts.

Appellate Case: 04-2274 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2005 Entry ID: 1898903
-3-

Harter also contends the statute authorizing AWG is unconstitutional. Harter’s

Fifth Amendment claim fails because the Department’s written records hearing

satisfies the due process requirement that the Department provide defaulted student

loan debtors a meaningful opportunity to present objections before implementing the

garnishment. Harter has failed to produce any evidence supporting her allegation that

the Department’s hearing was inadequate. We also reject Harter’s assertion that the

separation of powers doctrine prohibits Congress from assigning the Department the

power to decide defaulted student loan claims. Because the claims are raised for the

first time on appeal, we decline to consider Harter’s Seventh and Tenth Amendment

claims, as well as her claim that due process requires the hearing to be conducted by

an entity other than the Department.

Harter next argues the district court should not have granted summary

judgment on her claim that the Department’s decision was arbitrary and capricious

under the Administrative Procedure Act. According to Harter, there were genuine

issues of material fact regarding her earlier bankruptcy and the Department’s actions

after she filed her complaint. Harter bore the burden to show the debt was

extinguished, however, and failed to do so. Further, the Department’s actions had no

effect on the district court’s review of the allegations in Harter’s complaint. 

Harter also contends the district court should have granted her motion for a

temporary restraining order. The Department did not exceed its authority in

implementing AWG, and 20 U.S.C. § 1082(a)(2) prohibits a court from entering an

injunction against the Secretary of Education.

Last, Harter argues the Department should have excluded the amount

contributed to her teacher pension fund when determining the amount of pay subject

to garnishment. Harter relies on 20 U.S.C. § 1095a(e) (defining disposable pay

subject to garnishment as amount remaining “after the deduction of any amounts

required by law to be withheld”), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 169.030 (requiring public school

Appellate Case: 04-2274 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2005 Entry ID: 1898903
-4-

retirement contributions), and id. § 169.587 (exempting retirement property or right

from garnishment). Because Harter raises this argument for the first time on appeal,

we decline to consider it. Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 297 F.3d 720, 725 (8th Cir.

2002). At oral argument, however, the Department’s attorney stated the Department

had been unaware of the Missouri statute, would review the legal issue, and

determine whether Harter is entitled to a reduction in garnishment. 

We grant Harter’s request for leave to supplement the appendix with federal

government records, including those of her bankruptcy. Having done so, we affirm

the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2274 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/04/2005 Entry ID: 1898903