- 6 -
limitations if the main action is timely, use of recoupment based
on an otherwise time-barred claim is limited to defending against
the claim in the main action.6 Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258,
264 (1993); United States v. Dalm, supra at 605; Stone v. White,
supra at 538-539; Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 262-263
(1935); United States v. Forma, 42 F.3d 759, 765 (2d Cir. 1994);7
In re Greenstreet, Inc., 209 F.2d 660, 663 (7th Cir. 1954).8
6The term "main action" is used to denote the timely claim
as opposed to the time-barred claim upon which the recoupment
defense is based. See Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 264
(1993); United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 605 (1990); Stone v.
White, 301 U.S. 532, 539 (1937); Bull v. United States, 295 U.S.
247, 262 (1935); United States v. Forma, 42 F.3d 759, 765 (2d
Cir. 1994).
7After reviewing cases involving recoupment, the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit stated:
All of these cases conclude that "a party sued by the
United States may recoup damages * * * so as to reduce
or defeat the government's claim * * * though no
affirmative judgment * * * can be rendered against the
United States." In re Greenstreet, 209 F.2d at 663.
[United States v. Forma, supra at 765.]
8With respect to the limited defensive nature of recoupment,
the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated:
the government concedes that a party sued by the United
States may recoup damages arising out of the same
transaction, or where authorized, set off other claims,
so as to reduce or defeat the government's claim. That
this is a correct conception of the law is apparent
from United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty
Co., 309 U.S. 506, at page 511 * * *; Bull v. United
States, 295 U.S. 247, at page 262 * * *; United States
v. Ringgold, 8 Pet. 150, 163-164 * * *, though no
affirmative judgment over and above the amount of its
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011