United States v. Alemany Rivera

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 94-1081

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

GUILLERMO ALEMANY RIVERA,

Defendant, Appellant.

No. 94-1082

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

EDGAR M. STELLA PEREZ

Defendant, Appellant.

[Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Stahl, Circuit Judge.

Robert H. Kiernan with whom Robert M. Simels, P.C. was on brief

for appellant Edgar M. Stella Perez.

Pedro J. Varela for appellant Guillermo Alemany Rivera.

Sushma Soni, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division,

Department of Justice, Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General,

Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Douglas N. Letter,

Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, were
on brief for appellee.

June 6, 1995

CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge. The United States

filed this civil action in the district court against

defendants Guillermo Alemany Rivera ("Alemany") and Edgar

Stella Perez ("Stella"). Seeking damages under the False

Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733 (1982), the

government alleged that defendants had caused a false claim

for mortgage loan insurance benefits to be presented to the

Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). The

district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and

granted summary judgment in favor of the government, awarding

it $1,966,592. United States v. Stella Perez, 839 F. Supp.

92, 97-98 (D. P.R. 1993). We hold that the government filed

this suit after the applicable limitations period had

expired. We therefore reverse.

I.

During the 1970s, Alemany and Stella engaged in a

scheme to defraud HUD and the Department of Health and Human

Services ("HHS") in connection with a federally-insured

$12.46 million mortgage loan. At that time, Stella was

president, chairman of the board of directors, and medical

director of Hospital Nuestra Senora de la Guadalupe, a

hospital in Puerto Rico; defendant Alemany was a former

comptroller of the hospital. The hospital had obtained the

mortgage loan in 1974 from a private lender, Merrill, Lynch,

Hubbard, Inc. ("Merrill Lynch"), for the purpose of

-3-
3

renovating and expanding its facilities. HUD had agreed to

insure the hospital's loan pursuant to the National Housing

Act, 12 U.S.C. 1715z-7 (1982).

During the course of the renovation project, loan

proceeds were periodically disbursed to the hospital

according to the following procedure. Stella, as president

of the hospital, filled out a portion of a HUD "Form 2403,"

listing various items of completed construction and attaching

corresponding invoices. Stella then forwarded the form to

Merrill Lynch, which filled out a portion of the form and

forwarded it to HUD. After approving the disbursement, HUD

sent a Certificate of Mortgage Insurance to Merrill Lynch.

Merrill Lynch then released loan funds to the hospital or

directly to the suppliers and contractors. Occasionally,

loan funds were also disbursed from a separate equipment

escrow account, upon HUD's receipt of a letter from Stella

with attached invoices for purchased equipment.

Defendants siphoned off a portion of the loan

proceeds through their control of a furniture company, Casa

Cardona, Inc., and its subsidiary, an equipment company

called AAA Hospital Supply, Inc., which they incorporated

soon after the hospital secured the loan. Through these two

companies, Stella and Alemany sold equipment and furnishings

to the hospital at substantially inflated prices and charged

the hospital for equipment that the companies never provided.

-4-
4

The hospital paid for the equipment with the loan proceeds,

which were disbursed to the companies by Merrill Lynch

pursuant to the procedure described above. In all,

defendants submitted 20 separate fraudulent requests for loan

proceeds between 1974 and 1978, as to which HUD, upon

paperwork furnished by defendants, issued certificates of

insurance.

On May 1, 1979, the hospital was unable to make a

scheduled payment on the loan. After the 30-day grace period

expired, the hospital filed a petition for bankruptcy under

chapter 11. Merrill Lynch formally declared the loan to be

in default on July 1, 1979. On July 2, 1979, Merrill Lynch

filed a "Mortgagee's Application for Insurance Benefits,"

along with a letter notifying HUD of the default and of its

intention to exercise its rights under the insurance

contract. The July 2 document contained only very basic

information, identifying the project and the lender. Then,

on July 17, 1979, Merrill Lynch filed a more detailed

"Mortgagee's Application for Partial Settlement," setting

forth specific financial information about the defaulted

loan, including the amount in default and the unpaid

principal balance. On October 25, 1979, Merrill Lynch

assigned the mortgage to HUD, as the terms of its insurance

contract required. On January 17, 1980, after approving the

claim, HUD disbursed to Merrill Lynch approximately $12.1

-5-
5

million, representing the unpaid principal balance on the

mortgage, less certain credits.

In July of 1982, defendants were charged under a

nine-count criminal indictment based upon the events

described above. The indictment alleged that they had

conspired to defraud the government and had made false

statements in support of fraudulent claims. 18 U.S.C. 2,

152, 371, 1001 (1982). After a 30-day trial, a jury

convicted defendants on all nine counts. Stella was

sentenced to 20 years in prison and placed on probation for

an additional five years on the condition that he pay

$686,349 in restitution;1 Alemany was sentenced to 10 years

in prison and fined $10,000. This court affirmed both

convictions and both sentences. United States v. Alemany

Rivera, 781 F.2d 229, 238 (1st Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475

U.S. 1086 (1986).

On October 25, 1985, the government brought the

instant civil action against defendants, seeking recovery

under the FCA. An individual is liable under the FCA if he

or she "knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an

officer or employee of the Government . . . a false or

fraudulent claim for payment or approval." 31 U.S.C.

3729(1) (1982). As in the criminal indictment, the

government alleged that defendants had conspired to divert

1. The district court later vacated the restitution order.

-6-
6

the proceeds of the government-insured mortgage loan through

their control of the two supply corporations and through the

submission of inflated requests for loan proceeds. In so

doing, the government asserted, defendants caused Merrill

Lynch to submit an inflated "claim" for payment under the

insurance contract after the hospital defaulted on the loan.

The government moved for summary judgment.

Defendants filed an opposition and moved to dismiss on the

ground the action was barred by the statute of limitations.

Ruling that the action had been filed within the applicable

limitations period, the district court denied defendants'

motion. The court thereupon granted summary judgment for the

government, holding there were no remaining genuine issues of

material fact. The court ruled that the factual allegations

in the civil complaint were identical to the allegations in

the prior criminal action. Accordingly, the court held that

defendants were collaterally estopped from re-litigating any

of the factual issues, as these had already been determined

at the criminal trial. See Emich Motors Corp. v. General

Motors Corp., 340 U.S. 558, 568-69 (1951). The court awarded

damages based on "uncontroverted evidence in the record."

II.

Defendants argue on appeal that the district court

erred in ruling that this suit was not barred by the statute

-7-
7

of limitations. The FCA's statute of limitations provides

that an action "must be brought within 6 years from the date

the violation is committed." 31 U.S.C. 3731(b) (1982).2

The elements of a "violation" of the FCA are, as noted above,

that an individual "knowingly presents, or causes to be

presented, to an officer or employee of the Government . . .

a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval." 31

U.S.C. 3729(1) (1982).

The present case is complicated by the fact that

Alemany's and Stella's fraud acted, in the first instance,

upon a private lender, Merrill Lynch, rather than directly

upon the government. This fraud, however, was followed by

the hospital's default, resulting in Merrill Lynch's claim to

HUD for reimbursement for its loss on the defaulted loan

under the federal insurance that defendants had helped

procure. Although, from Merrill Lynch's perspective, the

claim it presented may not have been "false or fraudulent,"

that claim was inflated by defendants' earlier fraud; and the

case law allows the United States, in such circumstances, to

sue defendants under the FCA for having "caused" the filing

of a "false" claim against the government.

2. This was the statute as it stood when the events at
issue in this case occurred. All parties in this suit appear
to agree that this earlier version applies. The current
statute, in any event, contains essentially the same
language. See 31 U.S.C. 3731(b)(1) (1988).

-8-
8

Recognition of a false claim action of this sort

followed upon the Supreme Court's decision in United States

v. McNinch, 356 U.S. 595 (1958). In McNinch the Court held

that a lending institution's mere application for credit

insurance, even if fraudulent, did not amount to a "claim" as

that term is used in the FCA. Id. The concept of a claim

against the government, the Court said, "normally connotes a

demand for money or for some transfer of public property."

Id. The Sixth Circuit found such a demand to exist where, as

here, after fraud was perpetrated on a lending institution

for which the perpetrator of the fraud had secured government

insurance, the lender presented its own claim to the

government for payment or insurance. United States v.

Ekelman & Assoc., 532 F.2d 545, 552 (6th Cir. 1976). See

also United States v. Veneziale, 268 F.2d 504, 505-06 (3d

Cir. 1959). The lender's claim in effect completes the

perpetrator's violation of the FCA, commencing the running of

the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court itself has yet

to endorse this theory, but all the parties in the present

case accept it, as, for present purposes, do we.

We accordingly proceed on the theory that the

"violation" here was "committed," see 31 U.S.C. 3731(b)

(1982), for statute of limitation purposes, whenever Merrill

Lynch can properly be said to have presented its insurance

claim to the government. See United States v. Bornstein, 423

-9-
9

U.S. 303, 309 (1976) (false claim may be presented through an

innocent third party); United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess,

317 U.S. 537, 544-45 (1943) (provisions of the FCA "indicate

a purpose to reach any person who knowingly assisted in

causing the government to pay claims which were grounded in

fraud, without regard to whether that person had direct

contractual relations with the government"). The claim was

"false or fraudulent" in that the amount claimed was inflated

by $686,349, the amount that defendants pocketed as a result

of their fraudulent scheme. See Veneziale, 218 F.2d at

506.3

Although the parties all agree that a false or

fraudulent "claim" under the FCA was "presented" when the

loan holder, Merrill Lynch, made its claim for payment on the

insurance contract, they differ as to precisely when

3. In holding that a lender's claim for mortgage insurance
benefits is a claim under the FCA, the Third Circuit panel in
Veneziale wrote:

The claim before us now is certainly
"grounded in fraud" in that a fraudulent
misrepresentation induced the government
to assume the obligation which it has had
to perform. We are satisfied that the
government, having been compelled to pay
an innocent third person as a result of
the defendant's fraud in inducing the
undertaking, is entitled to assert a
claim against the defendant under the
False Claims Act.

Id. at 506. Similarly, in this case, defendants' fraudulent

statements induced the government to assume more insurance
obligations than it otherwise would have.

-10-
10

presentation of the claim took place. Alemany argues that

the claim was presented on June 1, 1979, after the 30-day

grace period following the hospital's missed payment had

expired. Stella took a similar position when arguing in the

district court, but he now argues that the claim was actually

presented somewhat later, in July of 1979, when Merrill Lynch

filled out, executed and submitted to HUD two applications

for reimbursement under its insurance contract. Under both

Alemany's and Stella's contentions, the present suit is

untimely, having been instituted more than six years later,

on October 25, 1985. The district court held, however, and

the government contends, that Merrill Lynch's claim was not

presented until October 26, 1979, when Merrill Lynch formally

assigned its mortgage on the hospital's property to the

government, thereby complying with a condition precedent to

HUD's obligation to pay Merrill Lynch under the insurance

contract. See 24 C.F.R. 207.258, 207.259(a), 242.260

(1981) (detailing the mortgage insurance payment process).

We quickly dismiss Alemany's argument that the

claim was presented on June 1, 1979, 30 days after the

hospital missed a payment on the loan.4 Alemany argues

that, 30 days after the missed payment, defendants' grace

4. We review a district court's decisions on motions for
dismissal and summary judgment de novo. See Heno v. FDIC.,

20 F.3d 1204, 1205 (1st Cir. 1994); Pagano v. Frank, 983 F.2d

343, 347 (1st Cir. 1993).

-11-
11

period had expired and Merrill Lynch was entitled to seek

reimbursement from the government under the terms of its

insurance contract. At this point, however, Merrill Lynch

had not yet "presented" a "claim" to the government for

payment. Although Merrill Lynch was by then entitled to

submit a demand for government funds, there is no evidence

that Merrill Lynch had yet done so. Indeed, it was possible,

if highly unlikely, for Merrill Lynch to choose not to

present a claim to the government at all and to have instead

looked to the mortgage for reimbursement. See United States

v. Stillwater Community Bank, 645 F. Supp. 18, 19 (W.D. Okla.

1986); but cf. United States v. Goldberg, 256 F. Supp. 540,

541-42 (D. Mass. 1966). In any event, no claim was yet

presented, and no "violation" of the FCA occurred, on or

before June 1, 1979. See Stella Perez, 839 F. Supp. at 95.

The district court did not err in denying Alemany's motion to

dismiss on this ground.5

The harder question and the place where we part

company with the decision below and with the government is

whether, as Stella now argues, Merrill Lynch presented a

claim to the government in July of 1979, when Merrill Lynch

submitted formal documents notifying HUD of the default and

5. Alemany's reference to Jankowitz v. United States, 533

F.2d 538, 547 (Ct. Cl. 1976) is unavailing, since the court
in that case explicitly refused to decide whether the
limitations period begins to run at default or upon
submission of a claim for mortgage insurance.

-12-
12

applying for federal insurance benefits relative to the

defaulted mortgage loan. In its opinion the district court

nowhere discussed the July filings with HUD as possible

"claims" triggering the running of the statute of

limitations. This is understandable as neither Stella nor

anyone else raised the point below. Both defendants argued

to the district court that the claim and violation should be

deemed to have occurred on June 1, 1979. Ordinarily, this

court will not consider for the first time on appeal

arguments not raised below, absent "exceptional

circumstances." Desjardins v. Van Buren Community Hosp., 969

F.2d 1280, 1282 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Krynicki,

689 F.2d 289, 291 (1st Cir. 1982). But we think that special

circumstances warrant our considering the point now. The

government has answered Stella's argument on its merits

without in any way objecting to, or questioning, Stella's

right to raise it for the first time on appeal. We can only

assume from the lack of objection that the government does

not believe that it is now materially prejudiced by the

absence of consideration of the matter below or else

perhaps, that the government has some other reason for

waiving objection to our consideration of this argument.

Whatever the reason, as the government has offered no

objection and has responded on the merits, we are disposed to

address Stella's argument, especially because it is so

-13-
13

germane to the question that was extensively addressed below

namely, when the claim was presented and when the statute

of limitations commenced to run. The actions taken in July

1979, were, moreover, closely related in character and

sequence to the actions in June and October that the district

court did consider. See Knight v. United States, 37 F.3d

769, 772 n.2 (1st Cir. 1994).

We realize that Stella's argument relies on

material outside the pleadings, the July forms themselves,

which the district court had before it, making it technically

a cross-motion for summary judgment, rather than a motion to

dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b); 5A Charles Wright &

Arthur Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 1366 (1990).

On appeal, we are not bound by the label that defendants and

the district court have attached to the motion. William J.

Kelly Co. v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 172 F.2d 865, 866

(1st Cir. 1949); Wright & Miller, 1366, at 497-98 n.20.

The only question is whether the government has received, as

it is entitled to under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), a reasonable

opportunity to present relevant opposing evidence. While

aware that Stella's argument on appeal referred to the July

documents, the government has at no time objected to Stella's

reference to those documents, nor has it argued that it has

been materially prejudiced by the reference. We take this as

indicating that the government sees no need for further

-14-
14

opportunity to present evidence in response to Stella's

argument. See Moody v. Town of Weymouth, 805 F.2d 30, 31-32

(1st Cir. 1986) (adopting a pragmatic approach to Rule 12(b)

conversions and holding harmless the district court's failure

to notify a party of such conversion where the party "has

received the affidavit and materials, has had an opportunity

to respond to them, and has not controverted their

accuracy"); see also Whiting v. Maiolini, 921 F.2d 5, 6 (1st

Cir. 1990).6 The question is thus whether either party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

To answer this, we must determine when Merrill

Lynch's interest in federal reimbursement became a "claim"

for purposes of the FCA recognizing, of course, that the

malefactors were the defendants, not Merrill Lynch, the

latter being merely a vehicle through which defendants'

earlier fraud ripened into a cognizable claim under the FCA.

The paradigmatic example of a false claim under the

FCA is a false invoice or bill for goods or services. See,

6. As we indicate below, the government has not suggested
that it would submit any additional evidence supporting its
arguments on appeal, if given the opportunity to do so. See

Moody, 805 F.2d at 31-32 ("Because plaintiff has not shown

that he would have done something different had the district
court taken him by the hand and told him defendants' motion
had been converted into a motion for summary judgment and
that this something would likely have defeated defendants'
motions, we conclude plaintiff has not demonstrated prejudice
and that therefore there would be no point in remanding.").

-15-
15

e.g., Bornstein, 423 U.S. at 309. The term, however, applies

more generally to other demands for government funds. See,

e.g., United States v. Neifert-White, 390 U.S. 228, 230

(1968) (false application for government loan); Sell v.

United States, 336 F.2d 467, 474 (10th Cir. 1964) (fraudulent

claim for federal assistance). In McNinch, the Supreme Court

indicated that a "claim" under the FCA is a "demand for

money" that induces the government to disburse funds or to

"otherwise suffer immediate financial detriment." McNinch,

356 U.S. at 599. In Neifert-White, the Court further

elaborated, defining a claim to be "a false statement made

with the purpose and effect of inducing the Government

immediately to part with money." 390 U.S. at 230.

Enacted during the Civil War, the FCA's specific

aim was to clamp down on widespread fraud by government

contractors who were submitting inflated invoices and

shipping faulty goods to the government. See S. Rep. No. 99-

345, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 8, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N.

5266, 5273 (briefly summarizing the history of the FCA). In

furthering this goal, the statute attaches liability, not to

the underlying fraudulent activity or to the government's

wrongful payment, but to the "claim for payment." Indeed, a

contractor who submits a false claim for payment may still be

liable under the FCA for statutory penalties, even if it did

not actually induce the government to pay out funds or to

-16-
16

suffer any loss. See, e.g., Rex Trailer Co. v. United

States, 350 U.S. 148, 153 & n.5 (1956); United States ex rel.

Hagood v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 929 F.2d 1416, 1421

(9th Cir. 1991). This focus on the claim for payment appears

to reflect a congressional judgment that fraud by government

contractors is best prevented by attacking the activity that

presents the risk of wrongful payment, and not by waiting

until the public fisc is actually damaged. By attaching

liability to the claim or demand for payment, the statute

encourages contractors to "turn square corners when they deal

with the government." Rock Island, Arkansas & Louisiana R.R.

Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143 (1920) (Holmes, J.).

Thus, in deciding whether a given false statement is a claim

or demand for payment, a court should look to see if, within

the payment scheme, the statement has the practical purpose

and effect, and poses the attendant risk, of inducing

wrongful payment.

Applying this understanding of the statute along

with the language in McNinch and Neifert-White, we conclude

that the application filed by Merrill Lynch on July 17,

constituted a "claim for payment" against the government. An

official HUD document titled "Mortgagee's Application for

Partial Settlement," the July 17 form required Merrill Lynch

to furnish detailed information about the loan, including:

the name of the insured project, the project number, the

-17-
17

date, the names of the mortgagee and servicer, the amount of

payment in default, the date of default, the nature of the

default, the aggregate cash escrows on hand, the unpaid

principal balance, and the undisbursed mortgage proceeds.

The form also set forth, in some detail, the method through

which the mortgagee would obtain payment under the terms of

the contract once the mortgage was assigned. The form

required the mortgagee to send notice of assignment by

telegram and specified how payment could be obtained either

in cash or through debentures.7 Merrill Lynch completed the

form and provided the requested answers.

The contents of the July 17 application, therefore,

even when viewed in the light most favorable to the

government, Rivera v. Murphy, 979 F.2d 259, 261 (1st Cir.

1992), indicate that it was a "demand for money" within the

meaning of McNinch. By submitting the application, Merrill

Lynch told HUD that it was exercising its rights under the

insurance contract. Moreover, in providing detailed

financial information about the mortgage, the completed form

7. The form provides: "On the date of the assignment or
deed is filed for record, a telegram is to be sent to [this
address], advising the date that the assignment or deed was
filed for record . . . . If the mortgage has been finally
endorsed for insurance, partial settlement of approximately
90% of the unpaid principal balance will be made upon receipt
of the telegram above . . . . The final settlement will be
made after receipt of the fiscal data and title requirements,
which are to be submitted within 45 days after the assignment
. . . ."

-18-
18

specified the amount Merrill Lynch expected to receive under

that contract. In setting forth both the amount and method

of payment, the application resembled, in many ways, an

invoice, bill, application for loan proceeds, or other demand

for money from the government. The completed form can be

read as essentially saying to HUD, "We are owed this amount

under the terms of our insurance contract." It was quite

literally a demand for payment from the government. The very

title of the form states that it is an "application" for

government funds. Compare Neifert-White, 390 U.S. at 230

(holding that an application for a government loan was a

"claim" under the FCA).

The contents of the form, moreover, had the

"purpose and effect" of inducing the government to part with

its money. See Neifert-White, 390 U.S. at 232. Inflated

because of defendants' earlier fraudulent conduct, the

figures in the form were what the insured said it was owed

and should be paid by the government. The application

created the risk that the government would, in reliance upon

those figures, be induced to pay the "fraudulent" amount.

There is no evidence that Merrill Lynch submitted any later

forms that could have been used to fix the amount of payment.

The government asks us to hold that the mortgage

assignment executed by Merrill Lynch in October was the

-19-
19

"claim" under the FCA. But the mortgage assignment merely

transferred the mortgage to the government, in compliance

with a condition to payment which had to be met, as a matter

of course, in effectuating the July 17 claim. The assignment

of the mortgage contained no figures constituting a payment

amount and did not purport to demand money. The July 17

form, per contra, allowed for the possibility that funds

might be disbursed, under some circumstances, simply upon

HUD's receipt of notice of the assignment, further suggesting

that the form was intended to be relied upon in fixing the

amount of payment. The government has mentioned no facts

contradicting this reading. Once Merrill Lynch submitted the

completed form, the government had an actionable claim under

the FCA.

The government appears to argue that the July 17

form is more accurately characterized, not as a demand for

payment, but as merely notice from Merrill Lynch of its

intention eventually to file a claim. We take this to be an

argument that, as a factual matter, the July 17 form did not

have the purpose and effect of inducing payment and

accordingly presented no risk of wrongful payment in reliance

thereof. If the form could in fact be characterized as

merely notice, we would agree with the government that it is

not a "claim," as notice ordinarily does not put government

-20-
20

funds at risk or attempt, by itself, to induce the

disbursement of funds.8

The government has failed, however, to support the

above argument. No regulations have been called to our

attention suggesting that, within the HUD insurance scheme,

the filing of the July 17 form really had no purpose or

effect of inducing payment and was instead only a means to

notify HUD of its estimated liability. Nor, as noted, has

evidence been pointed out that Merrill Lynch made other

required filings with more detailed financial information.

These, had they occurred, might have suggested that the July

17 form was understood to be merely a preliminary estimate,

not to be relied upon in fixing the amount of payment.

However, the government has nowhere pointed or alluded to any

later papers submitted, or required to be submitted, by

Merrill Lynch which could have formed the basis for

calculating the amount of payment. The completed July 17

form, on its face, fully supports Stella's contention that it

was a demand for payment from the government. The government

has pointed to no facts that would contradict this reading of

the form and no facts suggesting that the figures on the form

posed no risk of wrongful payment, relying instead primarily

8. The earlier document submitted by Merrill Lynch on July
2 was arguably merely notice, as it provides only the most
basic information about the mortgage loan. We need not
decide the point, as the July 17 application was clearly
sufficient to constitute a claim.

-21-
21

upon the legal arguments presented below. Accordingly, no

genuine issue of material fact remains to preclude summary

judgment for defendants on this issue. See Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

The government's principal argument is a legal one.

It relies on the statement in McNinch that the insufficient

claim there (the request for government insurance coverage of

a future loan) did not, among its other failings, cause the

FHA to "suffer immediate financial detriment." McNinch, 356

U.S. at 599. The government contends that, in determining

whether a request for government funds caused an "immediate

financial detriment," the key factor is the legal effect of

such a request, as specified under the terms of the contract.

The government points to the terms of the insurance contract,

under which the government's obligation to pay insurance

benefits arises only upon assignment of the mortgage. See 24

C.F.R. 207.259(a), 242.260 (1981). As, under the terms of

the insurance contract, submission of the completed July 17

form did not give rise to an instant unconditional obligation

to pay, the government contends that the form could not have

been a "claim" under the FCA.

We think the government reads too much into

McNinch's reference to immediacy. Lack of immediate

financial detriment is cited in McNinch as one of several

reasons an application for credit insurance falls short of

-22-
22

being a claim. In Neifert-White, a later case in which the

question was whether a fraudulent application for a

government loan constituted a "claim" under the FCA, the

Supreme Court held that the application was a "claim" under

the FCA even though it triggered no instant legal obligation

to pay out funds.9 "This remedial statute reaches beyond

'claims' which might be legally enforced, to all fraudulent

attempts to cause the Government to pay out sums of money."

Neifert-White, 390 U.S. at 233 (emphasis added).10

Neifert-White makes clear that the FCA reaches not only

claims that trigger the government's legal obligation to pay,

but more generally all claims that are "made with the purpose

and effect of inducing the Government immediately to part

9. The government makes much of the fact that the
assignment of the mortgage conferred on the government "all
rights and interest arising under the mortgage and credit
instrument so in default, and all claims against the
mortgagor, or others, arising out of the mortgage
transaction," implying that the government could not have
sued (and thus that the statute did not begin to run) until
it was assigned the mortgage. This reveals a confusion,
however, between a suit against defendants under the terms of
the mortgage and a suit under the FCA. The fact that the
former could not be instituted by the government until
assignment is irrelevant with respect to whether a suit under
the FCA could be instituted.

10. Compare the July 17 form to the paradigmatic case
under the FCA: an invoice for payment. The FCA attaches
liability to an invoice, not because it triggers an
obligation to pay (though it may well do so), but because it
poses a risk that the government may, in reliance upon the
false statements contained in the invoice, wrongly pay out
funds. Claims that trigger a legal obligation to pay merely
constitute a special subset of claims posing a particularly
high risk of mistaken payment.

-23-
23

with its money." Id.11 The key inquiry is thus whether the

demand for payment, whether or not it gives rise to an

unconditional legal obligation to pay right away, has the

practical effect of inducing the government to suffer

immediate financial harm.12

We hold that the July 17 form's demand for funds

had the practical effect of inducing payment in a

sufficiently "immediate" manner to satisfy the requirement in

McNinch. While the payment of funds was not literally

"immediate," in that nearly six months would elapse between

the application and the transfer of the bulk of the funds,

this lag is not by itself dispositive. Some similar delay

might be expected in the government's payment of an invoice

or a loan application, both of which are plainly claims under

the FCA. Indeed, most of the funds in this case were not

disbursed to Merrill Lynch until nearly three months after

the mortgage was assigned. We do not read the immediacy

language in McNinch as suggesting that government funds must

be unconditionally available on literally the same day as the

11. This reading of the term was reemphasized in the
1986 amendments to the FCA, which defines a "claim" as a
"request or demand" for payment. 31 U.S.C. 3729(c) (1988);
S. Rep. No. 99-345, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5284-85.

12. This is not to rule that the subsequent assignment
could never, alone, be sufficient to constitute a "claim"
under the FCA. It is just that we need not reach this issue
since the "claim for payment" was clearly submitted in this
case several months earlier, on July 17, 1979.

-24-
24

claim is made. In McNinch, the lack of immediacy was noted

in the context of an application for mortgage insurance, the

submission of which could occur several years prior to the

occurrence of any liquidated claims for the disbursement of

government funds, if, indeed, any claim for disbursement ever

arose at all. McNinch, therefore, presented the different

situation of there being as yet no crystallized claim of any

sort. In this case, we hold that Merrill Lynch's filing of a

specific claim for government insurance on the government's

form on July 17, 1979 was a "claim" within the FCA.

As this action was instituted on October 25, 1985,

over six years later, it was barred by the FCA's statute of

limitations. We do not reach the other arguments on appeal.

Reversed.

-25-
25