Andersen v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.
| Decision Date | 03 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–3323.,11–3323. |
| Citation | 678 F.3d 626 |
| Parties | B.B. ANDERSEN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Richard W. Miller, Miller Law Firm, P.C., Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Philip A. Kesaris, Spec. Asst. U.S. Atty., Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, Office of Gen. Counsel, Washington, DC (Beth Phillips, U.S. Atty., Charles M. Thomas, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) debarred B.B. Andersen from obtaining federal government contracts in 1990 after he failed to make required payments to the agency. Twenty years after HUD had sent him notice of the debarment, Andersen brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against its enforcement. The district court 1 dismissed the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, and Andersen appeals. We affirm.
Two of Andersen's companies served as the developer and general contractor on a HUD project called the Burke Center in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and a dispute arose in 1985 concerning alleged construction flaws. Andersen and his companies entered into a settlement agreement with HUD where they agreed to pay $75,000 to settle all claims related to the Burke Center project. Andersen made an initial payment of $15,000 when he signed the agreement and was to pay annual installments of $15,000 until the balance was paid in full.
In an effort to collect the settlement money over the course of several years, HUD sent a payment invoice and a series of demand letters to a Topeka, Kansas address which had been listed as Andersen's billing address for the installment payments. Andersen's attorney replied in June 1988 that Andersen's companies had surrendered their assets and were unable to make the payments. In a subsequent letter copying Andersen, his attorney offered to settle the unpaid debt for a lesser amount, stating that Andersen “would like to avoid protracted litigation and to get the matter settled and put to rest.” HUD continued to seek the amount Andersen owed it under the agreement by sending demand letters to Andersen and his attorney. Andersen contends that he thought the installment payments had been made and denies receiving any communication from HUD about the money owed.
After these unsuccessful attempts to recover the sums owed, HUD initiated debarment proceedings against Andersen in 1990 to prevent him from procuring future federal government contracts. HUD sent Andersen a notice that it was proposing debarment and informing him that he had a right to a hearing before a final determination was made. It sent the notice on August 31, 1990 by certified mail to a P.O. box in Kansas City, Missouri which belonged to Andersen's company. HUD states that this was Andersen's last known address since it was the address on file with the Missouri Secretary of State as Andersen's “residence address” and the place where he conducted business as the chairman of a company. See24 C.F.R. § 24.105( l) (1990) (debarment notice must be sent to party's last known address). Several weeks later HUD received a return receipt card verifying delivery signed by Georgine Sell, an officer in Andersen's company.
On November 21, 1990 HUD sent Andersen a final determination of debarment by certified mail to the same Kansas City address. The letter stated that because Andersen had not requested a hearing within the 30 day period specified in the prior notice, debarment was effective under 24 C.F.R. § 24.314(g) (1990). HUD received a signed return receipt card for this letter as well. Andersen's name and the names of his companies were then placed on a public list of federally debarred contractors.
Andersen now asserts that he did not receive the letters sent to him by HUD and did not learn of the debarment until 2009. He states that he continued to perform work for the federal government “in various capacities” and had invested some $200,000 in an agricultural project in Kurdistan before he was informed by the United States Trade and Development Agency that he had been debarred.
Andersen brought this action against HUD in 2010 in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that the debarment was invalid and an injunction against its enforcement. He claimed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation v. U.S. Corps of Eng'rs
...precedent in Loudner and Konecny settles the issue in this circuit. The Eighth Circuit in Andersen v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 678 F.3d 626 (8th Cir.2012), affirmed the dismissal of a claim against the government brought twenty years after the cause of action......
-
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation v. U.S. Corps of Eng'rs
...or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that [he or she] had a claim.’ ” Andersen v. United States Dep't of Hous. and Urban Dev., 678 F.3d 626, 629 (8th Cir.2012) (quoting Izaak Walton, 558 F.3d at 759);Loudner v. United States, 108 F.3d 896, 900 (8th Cir.1997). The Pl......
-
Turkish Coal. of Am., Inc. v. Bruininks
... ... those three cases in turn, however, convinces us that the complained-of conduct, without more, ... ...
-
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Reservation v. U.S. Corps of Eng'rs
...knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that [he or she] had a claim.'" Andersen v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 678 F.3d 626, 629 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Izaac Walton, 558 F.3d at 759); see also Loudner v. United States, 108 F.3d 896, 900 (8th Cir. 1997). ......