Gross v. United States, 443-73.
| Decision Date | 20 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 443-73.,443-73. |
| Citation | 505 F.2d 1271 |
| Parties | John C. GROSS v. The UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Dennis C. McFarland, Sioux Falls, S. D., attorney of record, for plaintiff; John N. Gridley, III, Soux Falls, S. D., of counsel.
Lawrence S. Smith, Washington, D. C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. Carla A. Hills, for defendant.
Before DAVIS, SKELTON and KUNZIG, Judges.
ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is a farmer in South Dakota who was denied participation in the Feed Grain Programs administered by the Department of Agriculture for the years 1968, 1969, 1970, and 1971, because he was found guilty of violating the regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture governing the programs. The programs authorized payments to farmers for diverting some of their land from the production of specified grains, such as corn and barley, known as feed grain, to approved conservation uses. The statutes authorizing these programs are as follows:
The 1968-1970 Feed Grain Programs were authorized by section 16(i) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended by the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965, enacted November 3, 1965, 79 Stat. 1190, 82 Stat. 996; and by section 105(e) of the Agriculture Act of 1949, as amended, 79 Stat. 1188, 82 Stat. 996.
The 1971 Feed Grain Program was authorized by section 105 of the Agriculture Act of 1949, as amended by the Agricultural Act of 1970, enacted November 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1368.
This motion specifically involves a basic, statutory provision for the finality of the administratively determined facts involved in determination of lack of eligibility to participate in the instant Feed Grain Programs, 7 U.S.C. § 1385. It was originally enacted as section 385 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 68, and, although the section has been amended from time to time, it has been in effect ever since, with the finality language of the statute fundamentally unchanged.
Immediately prior to enactment of the Agricultural Act of 1970, on November 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1358 et seq., section 1385 provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
The facts constituting the basis for any payment under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, parity payment, payment under section 1339 of this title, i. e., diverted acreage payments loan, or price support operation, or the amount thereof, when officially determined in conformity with the applicable regulations prescribed by the Secretary or by the Commodity Credit Corporation, shall be final and conclusive and shall not be reviewable by any other officer or agency of the Government. * * * 7 U.S.C. § 1385 (1964)
The Agricultural Act of 1970, supra, continued the Feed Grain Program, for the crop years 1971, 1972, and 1973, by amendment to section 105 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended. 84 Stat. 1368. As part of the same enactment, it made the aforesaid finality provision of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (section 385; 7 U.S.C. § 1385) applicable in express terms to payments under the feed grain set-aside program (and also to payments made under the cotton and wheat programs, also provided for in the same Act), as the Feed Grain Program was now authorized under the said Agricultural Act of 1970, independent of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, 84 Stat. 1366 (§ 404(5)); id., 1378 (§ 605(3)). The amendment did not change the fundamental thrust of section 1385, which after the 1970 amendment, read, in pertinent part, as follows:
The facts constituting the basis for any payment under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, parity payment, payments under the cotton set-aside program, payments (including certificates) under the wheat and feed grain set-aside programs, payment under section 1339 of this title, i. e., diverted acreage payments loan, or price support operation, or the amount thereof, when officially determined in conformity with the applicable regulations prescribed by the Secretary or by the Commodity Credit Corporation, shall be final and conclusive and shall not be reviewable by any other officer or agency of the Government. * * * 7 U.S.C. § 1385 (1970)
The regulations issued by the Secretary provided generally for tenants and sharecroppers to receive a proportionate part of the program payments, based on their rental or sharing agreement with the owner or operator of the farm; precluded payments if the owner or operator reduced the number of tenants and sharecroppers on the farm in anticipation of or because of participating in the programs; and required refund by producers of payments to which they were not entitled, including payments in which the county Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee (ASC Committee) determined that the share received by the tenants and sharecroppers was not fair and equitable, based on the guidelines contained in the regulations for the division of payments. The Secretary was specifically authorized by statute to issue regulations providing for a fair and equitable division of payments to participating producers on farms. The Act of November 3, 1965, supra, added subsection (i) to section 16 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended. 79 Stat. 1190. Subsection 16(i) (4) stated as follows:
(4) The Secretary shall provide by regulations for the sharing of payments under this subsection among producers on the farm on a fair and equitable basis and in keeping with existing contracts. 79 Stat. 1192
In like manner, the November 30, 1970 Act, supra, amended section 105 of the Agriculture Act of 1949, as amended. 84 Stat. 1368. As amended, sections 105(d) and 105(h) stated as follows:
The regulations issued by the Secretary applicable to this case are contained in Title 7 — Agriculture, Code of Federal Regulations. They are listed as follows:
Part 775 — Feed Grains, Subpart-1966-69 Feed Grain
Regulations (1970 ed.)
Part 775 — Feed Grains, Subpart-1970 Feed Grain
Program (1971 ed.)
Part 775 — Feed Grains, Subpart-Feed Grain Set-Aside
Program for Crop Years 1971-73
(1972 ed.)
Part 780 — Appeal Regulations (1970 ed.)
Part 780 — Appeal Regulations (1971 ed.)
Part 780 — Appeal Regulations (1972 ed.)
Part 794 — Division of Payments and Certificates
(1970 ed.)
Part 794 — Division of Payments and Certificates
(1971 ed.)
Part 794 — Division of Payments and Certificates
(1972 ed.)
The 1969 Feed Grain Program
On April 16, 1969, the Lake County, South Dakota ASC Committee notified plaintiff that his Feed Grain Contract for the 1969 Feed Grain Program had been disapproved by the Committee because he had violated the following sections of the regulations: § 775.419(a)(2), § 775.419(a)(3); § 794.3(a) (2) and § 794.3(a) (3). The notification letter set forth the provisions of the regulations that the Committee had determined that plaintiff had violated. The Committee found as facts that the plaintiff had violated the regulations by having reduced the number of tenants on his farms in anticipation of or because of the programs; having exacted agreements from the tenants which caused them to pay over to him payments earned by them under the program; having sought an agreement with a tenant which would have changed the tenant's status so as to deprive him of payments he otherwise would have received under the program; and having sought an agreement with a tenant which would have reduced the size of the production unit.
The Committee denied the plaintiff the right to participate in the program for 1969 because of these violations, causing plaintiff a loss in payments of $7,670.74.
The plaintiff appealed to the State ASC Committee, which sustained the decision of the County Committee. Plaintiff then appealed to the Deputy Administrator, State County Operations, ASCS, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., who conducted a hearing which was attended by the plaintiff. The Deputy Administrator sustained the State and County Committees' decisions declaring plaintiff ineligible to participate in the program, and denied his appeal. The plaintiff requested the Deputy Administrator to reconsider the decision. The request was denied. The plaintiff then appealed from the denial of reconsideration and requested a hearing and the Deputy Administrator accepted the appeal and held a hearing which was attended by the plaintiff. (In the meantime, the matter had been reopened at the county and state levels to permit those committees to determine whether plaintiff had any new information they had not previously considered.) Following the hearing on the reconsideration appeal, the Deputy Administrator notified the plaintiff that his prior decision holding plaintiff ineligible to participate in, and to receive payments under, the 1969 Feed Grain Program was affirmed.
The plaintiff participated in the 1968, 1970, and 1971 Feed Grain Programs and was paid $7,904.70 by the Government for such participation. However, on November 23, 1971, the Executive Director of the Lake County ASC Committee notified him in writing that an investigation had revealed that plaintiff had violated the landlord-tenant provisions of the regulations in each of those years, and, consequently, was ineligible to participate. The violations were set forth in detail in the Executive Director's written notice, which consisted, in the main, of findings that there existed between the plaintiff and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carruth v. United States
...to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971); Gross v. United States, 505 F.2d 1271, 1279, 205 Ct.Cl. 605, 618 (1974); Hiatt Grain & Feed, Inc., supra, 446 F.Supp. at ...
-
U.S. v. Batson
...or whether some character of limited "arbitrary and capricious" type review is nonetheless available. Compare Gross v. United States, 505 F.2d 1271, 1279 (Ct.Cl.1974) (indicating possibility of limited factual review), and Boyd v. Secretary of Agriculture, 459 F.Supp. 418, 424 (D.S.C.1978) ......
-
Gross v. U.S., 81-1519
...of Claims seeking recovery for the wrongful withholding of feed grain program payments for the years 1968 through 1971. Gross v. United States, 505 F.2d 1271 (Ct.Cl.1974). Gross alleged that the ASCS violated several of its own regulations in withholding the payments. 3 The Court of Claims ......
-
Boyd v. Secretary of Agriculture, Civ. A. No. 77-2338.
...Corp. v. United States, 171 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1918); Garvey v. Freeman, 397 F.2d 600 (10th Cir. 1968); Gross v. United States, 505 F.2d 1271, 205 Ct.Cl. 605 (1974). The court has the authority to review the procedures employed in reaching the administrative determination. Prosser v. Butz, ......
-
Mccoy v. United States: the Eighth Circuit Imposes Excessive Requirements in Administrative Claims and Fails to Apply the Continuous Treatment Doctrine to Properly Postpone a Claim's Accrual
...("USDA") administered. See id. (establishing ASCS controlled participation in the feed grain program); Gross v. United States, 505 F.2d 1271, 1272 (Ct. Cl. 1974) (establishing the USDA administered the grain feed program). 295. Gross, 676 F.2d at 297. 296. Id. 297. See Gross, 508 F. Supp. a......
-
Mccoy v. United States: the Eighth Circuit Imposes Excessive Requirements in Administrative Claims and Fails to Apply the Continuous Treatment Doctrine to Properly Postpone a Claim's Accrual
...("USDA") administered. See id. (establishing ASCS controlled participation in the feed grain program); Gross v. United States, 505 F.2d 1271, 1272 (Ct. Cl. 1974) (establishing the USDA administered the grain feed program). 295. Gross, 676 F.2d at 297. 296. Id. 297. See Gross, 508 F. Supp. a......