American Financial Associates, Ltd., v. U.S.

2 Citing cases

  1. Bank One v. U.S.

    No. 01-325C (Fed. Cl. Oct. 25, 2004)   Cited 1 times

    See DiSilvestro v. United States, 405 F.2d 150, 155 (2d Cir. 1968) ("It is, of course, well established that parties receiving monies from the Government under a mistake of fact or law are liable ex aequo et bono to refund them, and that no specific statutory authorization upon which to base a claimed right of set-off or an affirmative action for the recovery of these monies is necessary."). See also Grand Trunk W. Ry. Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 112, 120-121, 40 S. Ct. 309, 64 L. Ed. 484 (1920); Wisc. Cent. R.R. v. United States, 164 U.S. 190 (1896); American Financial Associates, Lt. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 761 (1984), aff'd, 755 F.2d 912 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 145 Ct. Cl. 496, 172 F. Supp. 268, 270 (1959). This court's jurisdiction over defendant's counterclaim is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. ยง 2508:

  2. Summerfield Housing Limited Partnership v. U.S.

    No. 97-423C (Fed. Cl. Oct. 29, 1998)   Cited 1 times
    Finding that by modifying the contract with the name of the assignee and by incorporating the notice of assignment, the government expressly agreed to the assignment

    Waxman v.United States, 112 F. Supp. 570, 588 (Ct.Cl. 1953). Courts have held the financial institution exception must be strictly construed. SeeAmerican Fin. Assoc., Ltd v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 761, 768 (1984), aff'd, 755 F.2d 912 (Fed. Cir. 1985); accordUnited California Discount Corp., 19 Cl. Ct. at 507; Trust Co.Bank of Middle Georgia, N.A. v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 710, 711-12 (1992). Thus, a contractor must meet the requirements of these sections in order to gain the benefit of the exception.