Crow v. U.S., 78-3264

• Decision Date: 17 November 1980
• Docket Number: No. 78-3264,78-3264
• Citation: 631 F.2d 28
• Parties: James D. CROW, d/b/a Comco Leasing Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 28

631 F.2d 28

James D. CROW, d/b/a Comco Leasing Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 78-3264.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 17, 1980.

Ronald D. Law, Dee W. Dilts, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Stafford Hutchinson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before WISDOM, FAY and TATE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff/appellant, James D. Crow, doing business as Comco Leasing Company, brought suit against the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for an alleged conversion of certain furniture leased by Crow to tenants of an apartment complex owned by HUD. The district court dismissed HUD as a defendant, but the plaintiff asserts his cause of action against the United States. The court dismissed Crow's claim, holding that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in that he had not presented his claim in writing for a sum certain. We hold that Crow adequately presented his claim to HUD.

The Casa Claire Apartments, in Mesquite, Texas, were constructed in 1971. HUD insured the mortgage on the project. Casa Claire Apartments, Ltd. was the ultimate mortgagor. In June 1972 Casa Claire defaulted on its note agreement. The mortgagee, Home Savings Association of Dallas County, foreclosed on the project and took possession in February 1973. In December 1973, Home Savings assigned the project to HUD. In July 1975, HUD sold the property to a private party.

Crow was in the business of leasing furniture to tenants of various apartment projects. In the summer of 1972 he began to lease furniture to tenants of Casa Claire Apartments, receiving rental payments directly from the tenants. After Home Savings foreclosed on the project, Home Savings's management agent collected rent on the furniture from the tenants and turned it over to Crow. After HUD assumed possession, neither it nor its management agent collected or paid any rent for Crow's furniture.

Crow made repeated demands upon HUD that he be paid the value of the furniture and the rents owing to him, or that the furniture be returned. He met individually and with his attorney with HUD's representative over a period of nine months. HUD initially took the position that the foreclosure had vested title to the furniture in HUD. It later admitted that Crow owned the furniture and authorized him to recover possession of it. When Crow went to Casa Claire Apartments for that purpose, however, he found that the furniture was no longer there.

Crow brought this suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, ¹ alleging that HUD had converted the furniture or allowed a third party to do so. ² The district court granted summary judgment for the government on its finding that Crow had not made a sufficient written demand on HUD for the value of the furniture. He had, therefore, not exhausted his administrative remedies.

Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401(b), 2675(a) (1976), a person with a tort claim against the United States may not bring suit on his claim unless he first presents it in writing to the appropriate agency. The usual procedure for this is to file a Standard Form 95. See 28 C.F.R. § 14.2(a). It is clear, however, that neither a Form 95 nor any other particular form of claim is required, as the district court held with respect to the claim for rents. This Court has held, for example, that a simple letter from the claimant's attorney, enclosing receipts for the alleged items of damages, is a sufficient written demand under section 2401(b). This is so even though the letter itself contains no statement as to the amount of the claim, and even though the...