Haworth v. United States
| Decision Date | 10 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | D.C. No. 2:08-CV-00206-NDF,No. 11-8006,11-8006 |
| Parties | HENRY H. HAWORTH and MARCIA Q. HAWORTH, Trustees, or their successors in trust, under the Henry H. Haworth Living Trust; JAMES STEWART; JUDY STEWART, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants - Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff - Appellee, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an agency within the Department of Agriculture; EDWARD SCHAFER, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, acting in his official capacity; GAIL KIMBELL, Chief, United States Forest Service, acting in her official capacity; RICK CABLES, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, acting in his official capacity; REBECCA AUS, Shoshone National Forest Supervisor, acting in her official capacity; RICK METZGER, Wind River District Ranger, Shoshone National Forest, acting in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees, v. HENRY H. HAWORTH LIVING TRUST; J. RICHARD SMITH, Counterclaim Defendants -Appellants, JOHN RYHTI; JANE RYHTI; OWEN LAMPERT; JERI LAMPERT; DANIEL WILKINSON; DONNA WILKINSON, Counterclaim Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
(D. Wyo.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*Before HARTZ, O'BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
In 1940, two landowners granted adjoining easements1 (the "Easements") to the United States. The Easements authorize the United States to use a 60-foot-wide area of land for a truck trail. Although the Easements were granted in 1940, the United States did not attempt to construct a truck trail on the properties subject to the Easements until 2007.
In the years between 1940 and 2007, the properties subject to the Easements were subdivided, and the subdivided parcels were conveyed to several parties. In 2008, the owners of the subdivided properties (collectively the "Property Owners") filed a quiettitle action against the United States, the United States Forest Service, and several federal employees (collectively "the Appellees") challenging the validity of the Easements. The Appellees filed two motions for summary judgment, which the district court granted, thereby affirming the United States' interest in the Easements.
The Property Owners now appeal the district court's rulings. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
In June 1940, the Property Owners' predecessors-in-interest—J.A. Afflerbach and Martin Olson—granted two easements to the United States via right-of-way deeds. The properties subject to the Easements are located in Wyoming's Warm Springs Mountain area, part of the Shoshone National Forest. Together the Easements form a 60-foot-wide corridor of land running north to south.
In relevant part, the right-of-way deeds state:
The United States recorded the Easements in the land records of Fremont County, Wyoming, on July 22, 1940.
In 1939, before the Easements were conveyed, the United States Forest Service (the "Forest Service") surveyed the properties that would be subject to the Easements and approved the construction of a truck trail, which was designed to reach the Warm Springs Fire Lookout Tower (the "Lookout Tower"). A memorandum written in 1940 by a Forest Service engineer indicates that use of the contemplated truck trail would be "exceedingly light." Aplt. Appx. at 65. Despite the truck trail's initial approval, expenses related to "World War II . . . put the construction of the . . . [t]ruck [t]rail on hold indefinitely." Aplt. Br. at 8.
In 1964, the Forest Service sent a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Leon Cook (the "Cook Letter"), landowners in the Warm Springs Mountain area, who are not parties to this case. The Cook Letter stated that the Forest Service had discontinued its use of the Lookout Tower and that the Forest Service would no longer use an access road on the Cooks' property to reach the Lookout Tower. The Cook Letter addressed only the Forest Service's use of the access road on the Cooks' property. It did not address the Property Owners' properties or the Easements at issue in this case.
Over the next several years, the properties subject to the Easements were subdivided, and the subdivided parcels eventually were conveyed to the PropertyOwners. The Property Owners placed some improvements on the land, including homes and wells.
On June 21, 2007, a Forest Service employee sent a letter to the Property Owners, stating:
Aplt. Appx. at 91 (emphases added).
On September 19, 2008, the Property Owners filed a lawsuit against the Appellees seeking to quiet title to the Easements under the Quiet Title Act ("QTA"). On January 30, 2009, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the proceedings pending mediation,which the district court granted. During the next year, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, but they were unable to resolve their dispute.
On August 6, 2010, the Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the Property Owners' claims were barred by the QTA's 12-year statute of limitations.2 On the same day, the Appellees also filed an answer to the Property Owners' complaint, which included a counterclaim against the Property Owners. Specifically, the Appellees' answer states:
This is a counter claim: (A) [t]o quiet title in favor of the United States to certain easements in which the United States claims an interest; (B) [t]o obtain a declaration that the United States' proposed use of [the] [E]asements does not exceed the scope of th[e] [E]asements; and [t]o obtain an order requiring the movement or removal of any encroachments that interfere with the intended use of the [E]asements.
Answer with Counterclaim, Aug. 6, 2010 at 13-14.
On November 24, 2010, the Appellees filed a second motion for summary judgment. In support of the motion, the Appellees argued that they were entitled to summary judgment on their counterclaim because: (1) the Easements had not terminated or been extinguished, (2) the United States has not abandoned the Easements, and (3) the Forest Service's proposed road does not exceed the scope of the Easements.
On January 21, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming entered an order granting the Appellees' first and second motions for summary judgment. The district court first held that the Property Owners' claims were time-barred under theQTA's 12-year statute of limitations. Next, the court held that the United States had not abandoned the Easements. Finally, it held that the Forest Service's proposed road did not exceed the scope of the Easements.
The Property Owners filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the district court's grant of summary judgment.
On appeal, the Property Owners contend that the district court erred in granting the Appellees' motions for summary judgment for three reasons. First, they argue that the Easements terminated or were extinguished "per the explicit reversionary language of the [r]ight-of-[w]ay [d]eeds," Aplt. Br. at 2, when the Forest Service failed to build a truck trail on the Easements. Second, they contend that the United States abandoned the Easements in 1964 when it sent the Cook Letter, which indicated that the Forest Service would no longer use the Lookout Tower. Finally, the Property Owners argue that the Forest Service's proposed road exceeds the scope of the Easements.3
"We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standard as the district court." Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987, 997 (10th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that] the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "In applying this standard, we view the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Twigg, 659 F.3d at 997. "If no genuine issue of material fact exists, we determine whether the district court...
To continue reading
Request your trial