Ronald Shepherd, on Behalf Of; and All in the State Ofarizona Similarly Situated; Rollin Barkley, on Behalf Of;and All in the State of Arizona Similarly Situated; Roberta. Bricker; Marion Rodgers, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Edward J. Derwinski, Administrator of the Veterans'administration, Defendant-appellee.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Rollin Barkley; Ronald Shepherd; Robert A. Bricker;marion Rodgers, Defendants-appellants, 961 F.2d 132 (9th Cir. 1992)
Annotate this CaseJames 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In a separate unpublished memorandum disposition, we also affirm the summary judgment against Barkley, who raised issues particular to his case.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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
