Poverty Flats Land & Cattle Co. v. U.S., 82-2252
| Decision Date | 13 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-2252,82-2252 |
| Citation | 706 F.2d 1078 |
| Parties | POVERTY FLATS LAND & CATTLE CO., a New Mexico corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
William Monroe Kerr, Jr., Midland, Tex. (Wm. Monroe Kerr, of Kerr, Fitz-Gerald & Kerr, Midland, Tex., and Rod M. Schumacher of Atwood, Malone, Mann & Cooter, Roswell, N.M., with him on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Ellen J. Durkee, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Carol E. Dinkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., David C. Shilton, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C.; William L. Lutz, U.S. Atty., Raymond Hamilton, Asst. U.S. Atty., Albuquerque, N.M., with her on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before SETH, Chief Judge, and LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.
The question in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting the United States' motion for summary judgment on the ground that the quiet title action brought by Poverty Flats Land & Cattle Company against the United States was barred by the 12-year statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2409a(f). Poverty Flats' predecessor in interest acquired the property in question in January 1970 pursuant to an exchange of lands under the Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 315g(d) (repealed 1976). The land patent reserved to the United States the rights to "[a]ll mineral deposits in the land so patented, and to it, or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law." Less than one year prior to the filing of the suit in February 1982, a lessee of the United States commenced taking dirt, rock, and caliche 1 from Poverty Flats' land. Poverty Flats' action sought to establish that the United States had no interest in these materials. On appeal the government admits it has no interest in "ordinary dirt" and "ordinary rock" on Poverty Flats' land. Brief for the Appellee at 8. It does, however, claim ownership of caliche as a mineral within the scope of the reservation.
If Poverty Flats were seeking a declaration that the mineral deposit reservation was invalid, the action would be time-barred by the recitation in the patent, of which Poverty Flats would have at least constructive notice. But Poverty Flats declares that it is not contesting the government's rights to "mineral deposits" within the terms of the deed reservation. Rather, this is a dispute over the meaning of the language in the patent conveying the land: Poverty Flats contends that under a proper construction of the instrument dirt, rock, and caliche were not reserved to the government. In Kinscherff v. United States, 586 F.2d 159, 161 (10th Cir.1978), we said, "[T]he limitation issue is a mixed question of fact and law as to whether a patentee or a successor in interest knew or should have known of the Government's claim." Therefore, to justify the district court's conclusion that the limitations period has run, the inclusion of dirt, rock, and caliche in the mineral reservation must be so clear that it would have been unreasonable for the plaintiff to believe otherwise. See Amoco Production Co. v. United States, 619 F.2d 1383, 1388 (10th Cir.1980). We agree with the plaintiff that the court erred in holding that the statute of limitations had run without further development of the record.
Both parties admit that there is no case precisely deciding whether caliche is within the scope of a mineral reservation such as this one. The United States relies on rulings by the Department of Interior that limestone, sand, and gravel are minerals under various federal laws. See Vivia Hemphill, 54 Interior Dec. 80 (1932) (); United States v. Isbell Construction Co., 4 I.B.L.A. 205 (1971) (). The plaintiff relies on federal and state cases holding that clay, sand, and gravel are not within particular reservations of minerals. See, e.g., Western Nuclear, Inc. v. Andrus, 664 F.2d 234, 235, 242 (10th Cir.1981), cert. granted sub nom. Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 2266, 73 L.Ed.2d 1282 (1982) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuqua v. United States , Case No. 5:09–CV–212–R.
...State of Cal. ex rel. State Land Com'n v. Yuba Goldfields, Inc., 752 F.2d 393, 396 (9th Cir.1985); Poverty Flats Land and Cattle Co. v. United States, 706 F.2d 1078, 1079 (10th Cir.1983); Amoco Production Co. v. United States, 619 F.2d 1383, 1387–88 n. 3 (10th Cir.1980). The Court of Appeal......
-
State of N.D. ex rel. Bd. of University and School Lands v. Block
...North Dakota knew or should have known of the United States' claim is a mixed question of fact and law. Poverty Flats Land & Cattle Co. v. United States, 706 F.2d 1078 (10th Cir.1983); Kinscherff v. United States, 586 F.2d 159 (10th The parties agree, as do we, that the words "should have k......
-
Sawtooth Mountain Ranch LLC v. United States
...State Land Comm'n v. Yuba Goldfields, Inc., 752 F.2d 393, 397 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Poverty Flats Land & Cattle Co. v. United States, 706 F.2d 1078 (10th Cir. 1983); Peterson v. Morton, 465 F.Supp. 986 (C.D. Nev. 1979), vacated on other grounds, 666 F.2d 361 (9th Cir. 1980)); Michel v. Un......
-
State of Cal. ex rel. State Land Com'n v. Yuba Goldfields, Inc.
...Constructive notice of recorded deeds may commence the running of the limitations period, see Poverty Flats Land and Cattle Co. v. United States, 706 F.2d 1078, 1079 (10th Cir.1983); Amoco, supra, at 1387-88, n. 3 (10th In the case at bar, the court need not mull over the issue of whether C......