decisions. However, it is quite clear that the court intended that no defective "Notices of Intent to Take Adverse Action" or "Notices of Acceleration" be sent after its June 2, 1987 order. In addition, Vance Clark, the national Administrator of the Farmers Home Administration, issued a letter by electronic mail on May 18, 1987 that told FMHA offices that no "Notices of Intent to Take Adverse Action" or "Notices of Acceleration" were to be sent until after July 6, 1987 or until after they received further notice from the national office. Farmers who received either notice after June 2, 1987 should immediately write a letter to their local FMHA offices and ask that the notices be withdrawn immediately, as required by the May 18, 1987 letter from Vance Clark.

Why did the Coleman court decide that the "Notice of Intent to Take Adverse Action" forms were unconstitutional?

In its May 7, 1987 order, the court held that the "Borrower Acknowledgement" form was unconstitutional. The "Borrower Acknowledgement" is the form that farmers were required to fill out by choosing one of four options. The court said that this form was unconstitutional for three reasons:

1.

2.

3.

Because farmers were allowed only one method to respond, farmers who had received notices that listed more than one reason for FmHA's decision to take adverse action could not appropriately respond;

Because farmers were allowed to choose only one method to respond, they were unable to appropriately respond if more than one loan was affected by the notices; and

The local FmHA offices did not have adequate information available to give to farmers regarding the eligibility criteria, terms, restrictions, and benefits of the various options on the "Borrower Acknowledgement" form and the effect of choosing one option over another.

A major Court Decision halting farm foreclosures and liquidations by the Farmers' Home Administration (FmHA) was issued on June 2, 1987. The Decision affects over 65,000 farmers across the country.

U.S. District Court Judge Bruce M. Van Sickle of North Dakota issued the Decision in the Coleman v. Lyng national class action lawsuit. The Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc., of Saint Paul, Minnesota, attorneys for the farmers, filed a challenge in December 1985 to the "Notice of Intent to Take Adverse Action" used to advise farmers that FmHA intended to foreclose. On May 7, 1987, Judge Van Sickle declared that the challenged notice procedure was unconstitutional because it did not give farmers enough information or an adequate opportunity to apply for the FmHA programs available to prevent foreclosure. He also ordered FmHA to revise its notice form.

The June 2, 1987, Court Decision was issued to advise FmHA the actions it was required to take to protect the 65,000 farmers who had received the unconstitutional notice.

There are three groups of FmHA farmer borrowers affected by the Order. First, the Court's Order stops FmHA from foreclosing or liquidating loans of farmers who had received the notice but whose loans were not accelerated before May 7, 1987. Under the Court's order, FmHA may not accelerate these farmers' loans unless it starts the procedure over with a new notice. To accelerate a loan, FmHA must have sent the farmer a Notice of Acceleration which states that the entire debt is immediately due and payable.

Second, the Order requires FmHA to de-accelerate those accounts which accelerated between May 7, 1987, and June 2, 1987. FmHA must also send these farmers a revised notice before it can foreclose and liquidate their accounts.

Third, the Order also stops FmHA for at least 30 days from starting or continuing any foreclosure or repossession actions against farmers who had received the notice and whose accounts were accelerated before May 7, 1987. This 30-day period was granted to allow farmers time to decide whether they should defend against FmHA's foreclosure actions based on the unconstitutional form. These farmers should immediately seek legal counsel or call the Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc., at (612) 223-5403 for further advice.

While the Court Order does not permanently halt foreclosure and liquidation actions by FmHA, it does give tens of thousands of farmers an opportunity to apply for all of the loan servicing and restructuring programs available which may make foreclosure actions unnecessary.

In their tenth claim for relief, plaintiffs assert that forms FMEA 1924-14, 1924-25, and 1924-26 do not meet the due process requirement of the fifth amendment. Copies of these three forms are attached to this order as an appendix. Notice of the impending governmental deprivation and the opportunity for a hearing on the deprivation is an essential element of due process. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 579 (1975). The timing and content of the notice depends on the competing interests involved in a particular case. Id. The notice given must inform interested parties of the hearing availiable to them, and enable them to adequately prepare for it. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 14 (1978). The form and content of the notice "must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it." Mullane v. Central

Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315 (1950).

Two countervailing factors must be considered in

tailoring the due process notice to the circumstances of the present case. First, FmHA borrowers have available to them a number of provisions or programs intended to help see them through crises involving their loans. These options are bewildering both in number and complexity. Second, it has been asserted without contradiction that some seventy percent of FmHA borrowers have a twelfth grade education or less. Any notice will have to strike a reasonable balance between providing complete notice of the options available and ensuring that the notice given can be read and understood by its intended recipients...

These

Generally, the three FmHA forms embody a reasonable compromise of these two competing goals. Plaintiffs, however, have raised numerous objections to the forms. objections will not be individually reviewed. The various assertions that the forms are in violation of this court's permanent injunction in this case do not address their The proper vehicle for these allegations

constitutionality.

would be a motion to have defendants held in contempt. This court neither encourages nor discourages the bringing of such

a motion.

The various assertions that passages of the forms are difficult to comprehend have some merit, but this court is satisfied that the difficulty does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. On the other hand, the