Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:00-CV-0852-D
November 9, 2001
ORDER
This is a student loan case brought by plaintiff United States of America ("United States") against defendant Everett Charles Moore ("Moore"). Moore also purports to counterclaim against the United States. The United States moves for summary judgment. Moore has filed a unsworn response. The court grants the motion and enters judgment in favor of the United States.
Moore filed his response on November 8, 2001. The reply brief of the United States is not yet due under the local rules. Because a reply brief is unnecessary, the court, as permitted by N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 7.1(f), is deciding this motion prior to receipt of a reply brief. See Solomon v. Godwin Carlton, P.C., 898 F. Supp. 415, 416 n. 2 (N.D. Tex. 1995) (applying former Local Rule 5.1(f)).
The United States sues Moore to recover on three promissory notes, seeking to recover the sum of $11,305.73 through October 24, 2001, plus additional prejudgment interest at $1.37 per diem until the date of judgment. It has introduced evidence that establishes each of the essential elements of its claims, that is, that Moore executed the notes, the United States is the present owner or holder of the notes, and the notes are in default. See, e.g., FSLIC v. Atkinson-Smith Univ. Park Joint Venture, 729 F. Supp. 1130, 1132 (N.D. Tex. 1989) (Fitzwater, J.). Moore has file a response to the United States' motion, but it is unsworn and is not accompanied by any summary judgment evidence. Unsworn pleadings "do not constitute summary judgment evidence." Bookman v. Shubzda, 945 F. Supp. 999, 1002 (N.D. Tex. 1996) (Fitzwater, J.) (citing Solo Serve Corp. v. Westowne Assocs., 929 F.2d 160, 165 (5th Cir. 1991)). He has therefore failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning any of the essential elements of the United States' claims or to raise a valid defense or counterclaim to his obligations on the notes.
See, e.g., United States v. Durbin, 64 F. Supp.2d 635, 637 (S.D. Tex. 1999), which explains, in the context of failure of consideration, why Moore lacks a valid defense to the claims of the United States.
Failure of consideration is the legal claim that a person did not get something of value in exchange for his promise to pay. In a student loan case, what the student got from the lender was money, and its value is unquestionable. Sometimes students would like not to pay the loan because they now feel that the school they attended was not very good or that the education they got was not adequate to get them a good job. Even if these feelings are supported by solid evidence, they do not matter. The bank lent money, and the government promised the bank that the debt would be paid. Neither the bank nor the government guaranteed satisfaction with schools or educations. Because the choice of institution and curriculum was the student's, the responsibility for a bad choice rests with the student.
Accordingly, the United States' October 24, 2001 motion for summary judgment is granted, and a judgment against Moore is separately filed today.