October Term 2013 · Docket 12-9012

Does returning a foreclosed property fully offset a fraud restitution order?

The dispute centers on whether a bank recovers its full loss when it repossesses a home bought with a fraudulent loan.

Official caption
Robers v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Green argued that returning the property satisfies the restitution requirement under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.

    Ms. Harrington argued that the bank loses the difference between the loan amount and the property value.

    Justice Kennedy asked if the property is fully returned when its value is less than the loan.

    Justice Ginsburg asked how courts determine the property value at the time of foreclosure.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests how courts calculate restitution for mortgage fraud. the side that brought the case argues that returning the property satisfies the debt. The government argues that the bank loses the difference between the loan and the property value.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 25, 2014.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the court to rule that returning the property fully offsets the restitution order.

The government wants the court to rule that the bank must recover the difference between the loan and the property value.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues that Section 3663A requires an offset when any part of the property is returned to the victim.

The government argues that the bank suffers a loss equal to the difference between the loan amount and the property value.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if the bank was defrauded of money or if the client never received the funds.

Justice Sotomayor asked why it is impractical to measure the loss by the amount the client received.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case determines how courts calculate restitution for mortgage fraud. It affects the financial recovery of banks and the liability of borrowers. The outcome sets a standard for valuing returned property in fraud cases.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON