VA Form 26-1820a. The VA’s interpretation of the statute is controlling unless “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S, 410, 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 1217, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945). Second, the Supreme Court has previously considered, and upheld, the VA’s right of indemnity against veterans for amounts it must pay lenders pursuant to its guaranty obligation. In United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 81 S.Ct. 1554, 6 L.Ed.2d 908 (1961), the Supreme Court considered the VA’s home loan program and upheld the validity of the VA’s independent right of indemnification under section 36.4323(e). In Shimer, as in this case, the VA sought to collect monies from a veteran pursuant to its. indemnity right rather than its subrogation right (<HOLDING>). The lender in Shimer, after purchasing the
holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area holding that if there is a collision between prior adjudicated rights and reserved rights of the united states the federal question can be preserved in the state decision and brought here for review holding that the insured failed to meet its burden where the insurer had reserved its rights to assert coverage defenses recognizing in both cases that its subrogation rights were ineffectual because the lender had not preserved its rights to a deficiency judgment against the veteran holding that subrogation rights are not security interests under ucc article 9