Summary
In Shepherd v. Derwinski, 961 F.2d 132 (9th Cir. 1992), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that Ariz.Rev.Stat; § 33-814, identical to the Oregon statute considered in Connelly, was preempted by the federal regulatory scheme, 38 C.F.R. § 36.4323 (e), because the Arizona statute eliminated all possibility of recovery against the veteran.
Summary of this case from U.S. v. RezzonicoOpinion
Nos. 90-15911, 90-16670.
Argued and Submitted December 10, 1991.
Decided April 1, 1992.
James M. Ackerman, Jennings, Strouss Salmon, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants.
Malcolm L. Stewart, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Roger G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding.
Before: NORRIS, BEEZER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
In this appeal, we decide whether the Arizona anti-deficiency law is preempted by Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) regulations that authorize the VA to collect deficiencies on VA-guaranteed home loans. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 33-729 A, 33-814 G. Because the Arizona anti-deficiency law at issue here is identical to the Oregon anti-deficiency law we considered in Connelly v. Derwinski, 961 F.2d 129, 130 (9th Cir. 1992), we hold, on the basis of that opinion, that Arizona's anti-deficiency law is preempted by 38 C.F.R. § 36.4323(e). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's summary judgment awarded to the Secretary of Veteran Affairs.
In a separate unpublished memorandum disposition, we also affirm the summary judgment against Barkley, who raised issues particular to his case.
AFFIRMED.