2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-10-2014 

# U S A v . C a r l C hr i s t ophe r
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t 13-1984

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . C a rl C hr i s t op he r " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 49. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/49

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 13

- 1984

_______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CARL F. CHRISTOPHER; CEDELLE CHRISTOPHER, Appell ant s

_______________ On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands

(D.C. C ivil No. 1

- 99

- c v - 0 0 196 ) Dist rict Judge: Hon. Wilma A. Lewis

_______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 10, 2013
BEFORE: FISHER , COWEN AND NYGAARD , Circuit Judges

(Filed : January 10, 2014 )

_______________ OPINION

_______________
COWEN, Circuit Judge

.2



### The defendant

- appellants, Carl F. Christopher and Cedelle Christopher (together, “the Christophers” ), appeal the grant of summary judgment against them and in favor of the plaintiff

- appellee, the United States of America (“the Government”). We will affirm. Because we write primarily for the parties, we here provide only a brief recitation of the perti nent fact s and procedural history. 1 

### In 1981, the Government loaned the Christophers $37,450 (“the Loan”) pursuant to Title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (“Title V”) , 42 U.S.C. § 1471 et seq. 2 

### The Loan was secured by a promissory note (“the Note”) and a mor tgage (“the Mortgage ” ) , which
encumbered property owned by the Christophers (“the Property”). In May of 1990, the Christophers and the Government executed a “ Reamortization and/or Deferral Agreement ” for the then

- unpaid balance of the Loan (“the Agreement ”). The Government filed a complaint against the Christophers in 1999, raising claims for both breach of the note and foreclosure on the Property. It sought summary judgment in its favor in September of 2011 , 3 

### and represented that the Christophers stopped making

1 

### A comprehensive account of the facts underlying this appeal appears in United States v. Christopher , No. 1999

- 196, 2012 WL 2062360, at *1

- 3 (D.V.I. June 8, 2012).

2 

### Title V permitted the Government “to extend financial and technical assistance through the Farmers Home A dministration (FmHA) to low

- income rural residents who [sought] to obtain housing.” Block v. Neal , 460 U.S. 289, 290 (1983).

3 

### Th at action was stayed from April of 2000 until September of 2008, and again from November of 2008 until February of 2010, pe nding resolution of a class action brought against the Secretary of Agriculture by Virgin Islanders who alleged “national origin discrimination in [the] administration of federal rural housing loan programs and monies.” Chiang v. Schafer , No. 2000

- 04, 200 8 WL 3925260, at *1 (D.V.I. Aug. 20, 2008). That suit was ultimately dismissed, and the dismissal upheld on appeal. See generally V.I. Class Plaintiffs v. Vilsack , 362 F. App’x 252, 252

- 54 ( 3d Cir. 2010 ).3



### payments on the Note and fell into default in August of 1997. It also represented that, as of September 7, 2011, the Christophers owed the Government $163,217.77. Interest
continued to accrue. The Christophers opposed the Government’s motion, arguing that three genuine issues of material fact precluded a grant of summary judgment. Specifically, they argued that the parties disputed: (1) whether the Government fairly treated the Christophers and serviced their loan; (2) how much money, if any, the Christophers owed the Government; and (3) whether the Christophers’ debt was discharged pursuant to settlement of their
claim in Pigford v. Glickman , D.D.C. Nos. 97

- 1978 & 98

- 1693. 4 

### Each argument was considered and rejected by the District Court. See Christopher , 2012 WL 2062360, at
*5

- 7. The District Court also independently concluded that the Government established that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id. at *4. 5 

### “We exercise plenary review over a district court’s grant of s ummary judgment, applying the same standard that the district court should have applied.” Klein v. Weidner , 729 F.3d 280, 283 (3d Cir. 2013). A grant of summary judgment is appropriate where the movant establishes “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F ED


### . R. C IV


### . P. 56(a).

4 

### Pigford was a class action brought against the Secretary of Agriculture by African

- American who alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691. See, e.g. , Pigford v. Glickman , 206 F.3d 1212, 1213

- 16 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

5 

### The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 48 U.S .C. § 1612 and 28 U.S.C. § 1345. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. § 1291.4



### For the same reasons stated in the District Court’s thorough and well

- reasoned opinion, we find that the Christophers have not established a genuine disp ute of material fact and conclude that that the Government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We will, therefore, affirm the June 8, 2012 order of the District Court, which granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment.