Burkhart: Recipient of DIC based on service connection under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is not entitled to home loan guaranty benefits

Burkhart v. Wilkie, docket no. 2019-1667 (Fed. Cir. August 21, 2020)

HELD: “[C]hapter 37 home loan guaranty benefits are available only to, as relevant here, ‘the surviving spouse of any veteran … who died from a service-connected disability’” – and this does not extend to veterans who are service connected under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. 

SUMMARY: Veteran’s surviving spouse received dependents’ benefits (DIC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 because the veteran died while in VA’s care. The widow sought a certificate of eligibility (COE) for a VA home loan in 2007, but she never finalized a loan. In 2013, she requested a new COE and was denied because her late husband had no service-connected conditions during his lifetime – and home loan guaranty benefits under Chapter 37 are only available to the surviving spouse of a veteran who died from a service-connected condition. 

She appealed to the CAVC, and the Court held that she was not eligible for a home loan guaranty under the plain language and legislative history of 38 U.S.C. §§ 1151 and 3701. The Court held that 38 U.S.C. § 3721 – the “incontestability provision” – “applies only to the relationship between the Government and lending institutions …, not the Government and COE recipients.” Finally, the Court denied her requests for equitable relief, finding that to grant such relief “would expand the scope of [its] jurisdiction.” 

She appealed to the Federal Circuit, which upheld the CAVC’s opinion on all three points. 

Burkhart: DIC, 38 U.S.C. § 1151, & VA home loan guaranty

Burkhart v. Wilkie, docket no. 16-1334 (Jan. 3, 2019)

HELD: Surviving spouse of veteran whose death was service connected under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 and who is thus entitled to DIC benefits is not entitled to home loan guaranty benefits under Ch. 37. 

SUMMARY: Surviving spouse was granted dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) after her husband’s death was deemed service connected under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. She sought and obtained a certificate of eligibility (COE) for a VA home loan in 2007, but never entered into a loan agreement. In 2013, she again requested an eligibility determination for a loan guaranty and was informed that she was not eligible and that the 2007 COE was issue in error. 

On appeal, the Court reviewed the relevant statutory provisions and determined that she was not eligible under the plain language or the legislative history of 38 U.S.C. § 1151 or Ch. 37. The Court also determined that the “incontestability” provision of 38 U.S.C. § 3721 applies to the relationship between the government and lending institutions – not between the government and those who are eligible for a loan guaranty. Finally, the Court addressed the appellant’s arguments regarding the Court’s ability to provide relief based on its equitable powers. The Court acknowledged that while it has equitable authority, “that authority is constrained by the jurisdiction Congress conferred on the Court.” The Court discussed the four equitable principles argued by the appellant – injunctive relief, equitable estoppel, laches, and waiver – and determined that none were available in this case as a form of relief. 

FULL DECISION