From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
United States v. Chappell
United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
2000 WL 1507431 (2000)
In 1982, Ronald and Susan Chappell (defendants) entered into a loan for $92,000 from the Farmers Home Administration, the predecessor in interest to the Farm Service Agency (FSA) (plaintiff), which are both agencies of the United States government. The loan was for the purpose of purchasing a dairy farm and was secured by a mortgage. Unfortunately, the Chappells encountered significant difficulties in operating the dairy farm, including seriously ill cattle, structural problems with the barn, plumbing and electrical problems with the house and barn, and a nonfunctioning septic system. Additionally, the profitability of dairy farming in the area declined, the Chappells experienced a high mortality rate in their herd, and the herd produced a low milk output. As a result, the Chappells incurred serious cashflow difficulties. The Farmers Home Administration worked with the Chappells and paid their state real estate taxes for nine years and advanced additional funds. These funds were added to the loan, and the mortgage was refinanced. The Farmers Home Administration and the Chappells entered into a new mortgage deed in 1988. However, the Chappells stopped paying the loan payments that year. Approximately three-and-a-half years later, the FSA accelerated the full amount of the debt. About a year after that, the Chappells abandoned the property. The FSA then waited another 18 months to foreclose on the property. At that point, the property had been abandoned for over 18 months, which caused the property to deteriorate substantially. Additionally, the real estate market in the area suffered an enormous downturn. The foreclosure resulted in a sale for $40,000, leaving a deficiency on the loan of approximately $140,000. The FSA sued the Chappells for the deficiency. The FSA moved for summary judgment, and the Chappells also moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (McAuliffe, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.