Beaner v. United States
United States District Court for the District of South Dakota
361 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (2005)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Donald and Gloria Beaner (plaintiffs) secured a mortgage from the federal Farmers Home Administration (defendant), using their property as collateral. The Beaners did not repay the loan, leading the United States (defendant) to begin foreclosure proceedings. The Beaners sued the United States, arguing that their mortgage was fraudulent and that the attempted foreclosure was illegal because the Beaners did not receive the loan proceeds in gold and silver. Per the Beaners, only gold and silver were legal tender under the United States Constitution. Thus, among other things, the Beaners sought a declaratory judgment that Congress violated the Constitution when it established United States currency (i.e., cash and cash-denominated instruments) as legal tender. The Beaners had made a similar claim in a prior case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C.). Deeming the Beaners’ legal theory to be frivolous, the court offered the Beaners an opportunity to voluntarily withdraw their complaint and avoid potential sanctions for engaging in frivolous litigation. The Beaners declined the court’s invitation. The United States moved for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Piersol, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.