Hatter v. United States, Civ. No. S-74-205.
Decision Date | 08 August 1975 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. S-74-205. |
Citation | 402 F. Supp. 1192 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Parties | Richard L. HATTER et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants. |
Jan L. Warnshuis, Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiffs.
Dwayne Keyes, U. S. Atty., Richard W. Nichols, Chief Asst. U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for defendants.
This is an action brought by plaintiffs to quiet title to certain real property in Tehama County against the United States, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1346(f) and § 2409a. On October 25, 1972, the United States, for the first time waived sovereign immunity and consented to be sued as a party defendant in a quiet title action by the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, Public Law 92-562, 86 Stat. 1176.1
The United States has moved for summary judgment against plaintiffs on the authority of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(f), which provides as follows:
Plaintiffs' original complaint in this action was filed with this court on May 17, 1974. It is not disputed that plaintiffs' predecessor in interest, D. L. Williams, knew or should have known of the claim of the United States at least as early as January 23, 1951.2 That being the case, the clear words of § 2409a(f) would bar a quiet title action against the United States brought after January 24, 1963, and accordingly, this action would be barred.
In their memoranda in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, however, plaintiffs raise two contentions in argument that the bar of § 2409a(f) should not apply to them. As an initial matter, plaintiffs contend that the 12-year limitation of suit contained in § 2409a(f) should not begin to run in 1951, but rather, on October 25, 1972, the date the statute was passed. Additionally, plaintiffs argue that their predecessor in interest had only knowledge of "some sort of equitable interest" by the United States, and that there was no notice that the United States claimed legal title to the property. Although plaintiffs cite no cases nor Congressional history in support of their contentions, this court will consider them nonetheless.
To accept plaintiffs' reasoning that the 12-year limitation of suit contained in § 2409a(f) did not begin to run until October 25, 1972, would mean that all claims to quiet title against the United States, no matter how ancient, could be brought until October 26, 1984. So broad a waiver of sovereign immunity is neither supportable in logic, nor by the Congressional history of § 2409a(f).
The history of Public Law 92-562, which appears at 1972 U.S.Code Congressional & Administrative News, p. 4547, et seq. notes that § 2409a(f) was the result of a compromise, effecting a change from the original Senate bill:
The September 20, 1972, letter from the Department of Justice which is referred to is particularly pertinent:
In fact, the Senate version of § 2409a(f), making a quiet title action fully...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morton v. U.S.
... ... Allan Wayne MORTON, Appellee, ... The UNITED STATES, Appellant ... Appeal No. 290-77 ... United ... Lightell, 394 So.2d 41 (Ala.Civ.App.1981), in which the court held that the lower court ... ...
-
CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, ETC. v. Bergland
...442 U.S. 941, 99 S.Ct. 2882, 61 L.Ed.2d 310 (1979); Grosz v. Andrus, 556 F.2d 972, 974-75 (9th Cir. 1977); Hatter v. United States, 402 F.Supp. 1192, 1193-94 (E.D.Cal.1975). Denver knew or should have known that the federal government retained a claim of interest for the public in the fores......
-
Stubbs v. U.S.
...action until 1972, when the Quiet Title Act was enacted. The Ninth Circuit held the action barred and quoted from Hatter v. United States, 402 F.Supp. 1192, 1193-94 (E.D.Cal.), where the legislative history of § 2409a(f) was examined: To accept plaintiff's reasoning that the 12-year limitat......
-
State of N. D. ex rel. Bd. of University and School Lands v. Andrus
...that this was a typographical error and that the word "stale" should have appeared rather than "state." The court in Hatter v. United States, 402 F.Supp. 1192 (E.D.Cal.1975) has also recognized that this was a typographical error and that the proper word was "stale." See id. at 1194.8 The c......