United States v. Hall

• Decision Date: 24 April 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77-4038-CV-C.,77-4038-CV-C.
• Citation: 463 F. Supp. 787
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Charles F. HALL, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

463 F. Supp. 787

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Charles F. HALL, Defendant.

No. 77-4038-CV-C.

United States District Court, W. D. Missouri, C. D.

February 21, 1978.

On Motion for Review of Judgment April 24, 1978.

David M. Proctor, Asst. U. S. Atty., Ben J. Bonner, Jr., Asst. Dist. Counsel, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

George H. Miller, Sedalia, Mo., for defendant.

On Motion for Review of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b), F.R.Civ.P. April 24, 1978.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ELMO B. HUNTER, District Judge.

Plaintiff-lessor, the United States of America, initiated this unlawful detainer action on March 18, 1977, asking that this Court award it restitution of certain land and damages resulting from defendant-lessee's occupancy of that land beyond the term of the lease. The case having been fully tried before the Court, it is now ready for decision.

I Facts

Certain background information is essential to a full understanding of the issues presented by this case. Defendant, for many years, owned and farmed a tract of land along the Osage River in Benton County, Missouri. Condemnation proceedings having been filed, title to this property passed to plaintiff in 1966. Pursuant to an understanding of the parties, defendant would be permitted to lease the condemned property from the government until such time as the government had actual need of the land.

In 1967, defendant leased the property from plaintiff for $2425.00. From 1968 through February 28, 1975, defendant leased the property at a yearly rental rate of $1750.00, the reduction in rent being due to the fact that, after 1967, defendant was no longer able to utilize certain portions of the property. On February 28, 1975, defendant's last lease with plaintiff expired. By letter dated January 7, 1975, Mr. Donald C. Campbell of the Army Corps of Engineers informed defendant that he could rent the subject property, for grazing and hay production purposes, from March 1, 1975 through February 29, 1976, for $5,850.00. Defendant refused to accept this offer, but remained in possession of the property. He did, however, stand ready, willing, and able to pay an annual rent of $1,750.00, a sum which he contends represents the fair market rental value of the land. In fact, on several occasions, defendant has offered to write Mr. Campbell a check for the rent due computed at a $1,750.00 per year rate, but Mr. Campbell has refused to accept the offer.

Plaintiff now brings this action in unlawful detainer, pursuant to R.S.Mo. Ch. 534, asking for possession and rent.

II The Applicable Law

There are three possible items of recovery for a lessor in an unlawful detainer action: (1) "restitution of the premises found to have been forcibly or unlawfully detained," R.S.Mo. § 534.330; (2) "damages . . . for waste and injury committed upon the premises," R.S.Mo. § 534.310; and (3) "all rents and profits due and owing up to the time of the rendering of the verdict or finding of the magistrate." R.S.Mo. § 534.310. Where rents and profits are found to be due, the finder of fact "shall also state the monthly value of the rents and profits of said premises." R.S.Mo. § 534.310. The Court is then obligated, by statute, to enter judgment for double the sum of the damages, rents, and profits found to be due. R.S.Mo. § 534.330. As the Court in Lucas Hunt Village Co. v. Klein, 358 Mo. 1054, 218 S.W.2d 595, 599 (1949) summarized the law of unlawful detainer in Missouri:

"The landlord can sue in the same action for restitution of the premises, and for the damages, rents and profits due and owing through the period of their detention, from the time of demand for possession up to the date of the verdict. And under Sec. 2850 now R.S.Mo. § 534.330, the judgment must double the sum assessed for the damages, and also for the monthly rents and profits up to the time of restitution."

There being no proof or allegation of any "waste and injury committed upon the premises," the "rents and profits" aspect of the unlawful detainer action will now be developed.

As stated in Massey v. Goforth, 305 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Mo.App.1957):

Damages for rents and profits in an action of unlawful detainer normally may be measured by, and assessed on the basis of, the reasonable rental value of the rented premises during the period of their unlawful detention, i. e., from the date on which complainants become legally entitled to possession of such premises to the date of judgment."

This "reasonable rental value" means "the value that the premises would have been worth in the market if the lessor had been free and able to rent the premises," Del Commune v. Bussen, 179 S.W.2d 744, 748 (Mo.App.1944), and "not necessarily the amount of rent contracted for." McIlvain v. Kavorinos, 212 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Mo.App. 1948), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 358 Mo. 1153, 219 S.W.2d 349 (1949).

Were the present case to involve a private lessor and a private lessee, this Court would merely determine from the evidence the fair market rental value of the property for the time that defendant has held over, double the amount of rent so determined, and award that sum to plaintiff, along with restitution of the property. The problem is compounded in this case, however, by the fact that the government was bound, by statute, to charge defendant no more than the fair rental value for the property in question. 42 U.S.C. § 4651(6). It is further compounded by the fact that determinations of fair rental value made by a federal agency pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4651(6) are not subject to judicial review. 42 U.S.C. § 4602(a); Nall Motors v. Iowa City, Iowa, 533 F.2d 381 (8th Cir. 1976); Barnhart v. Brinegar, 362 F.Supp. 464, 472 (W.D.Mo.1973). In like manner, decisions by the Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2667 concerning the amount of rent charged on leased land has been held to be committed to agency discretion and not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Drake v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Case No. 75-CV-131-W-1 (W.D.Mo., Mem. and Order filed June 10, 1976).

This does not, however, preclude this Court from making its own, independent finding of the subject property's "reasonable rental value" as that phrase is used by the Missouri courts in construing and applying the Missouri Unlawful Detainer statutes. Plaintiff, by this action, avails itself of the benefits of the Missouri Unlawful Detainer statutes; it will not, therefore, be heard to complain that this Court, in making an independent determination of the subject property's "reasonable rental value" — something which the Missouri statutes require this Court to do — is conducting an impermissible "review" of the government's determination of "fair rental value" under 42 U.S.C. § 4651(6) or of the amount of rent to be charged under 10 U.S.C. § 2667. By bringing this action under the Missouri Unlawful Detainer statutes, plaintiff has implicitly asked this Court to make its determination of the property's reasonable rental value. Defendant is not asking this Court to review the government's determination of fair rental value under federal law. Nor is he alleging that 42 U.S.C. § 4651 has created in him any rights (this being precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 4602¹); rather, he is simply defending a state-created unlawful detainer action brought against him by the federal government. As the applicable Missouri law requires the Court, in an unlawful detainer action, to determine the "reasonable rental value" of the subject property, that determination must now be made by the Court.

III The Possession and Reasonable Rental Value Issues

The Court finds that the government, in its offer to lease the subject property to defendant in 1975, insisted on a rent grossly in excess of the reasonable rental value of the property. However, the Court further finds that defendant had no legal right to remain on the property, as he did from February 28, 1975 to present, without the benefit of a lease.²

After carefully considering the expert testimony presented at the hearing as to the fair market rental value of the subject property, after reviewing the rents charged by plaintiff in leases involving land similar to that which is the subject of this suit,³ and giving due consideration to defendant's testimony as to the fair market rental value of the property, this Court finds the reasonable rental value of the 521 acres in question to have been $2,000.00 per year in 1975, $1,900.00 per year in 1976, and $1,200.00 per year in 1977.

Therefore, pursuant to R.S.Mo. § 534.330, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff be, and it is hereby, awarded immediate possession of the property which is the subject matter of this action; it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff be, and it is hereby, awarded, and defendant be, and he is hereby, directed to pay to plaintiff, the sum of $10,107.50;⁴ it is further ORDERED that defendant's claim for set-off be, and it is hereby, denied.

ON MOTION FOR REVIEW OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b), F.R.Civ.P.

By Order dated February 21, 1978, this Court awarded plaintiff-lessor restitution of certain land and damages resulting from defendant-lessee's wrongful occupancy of that land beyond the term of the lease. Pursuant to the Missouri Unlawful Detainer Statute, this Court awarded plaintiff double the reasonable rental value of the land in question.

Defendant, on April 4, 1978, filed his Motion for Review of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b), F.R.Civ.P., arguing therein that "the Court erroneously doubled the amount of damages pursuant to RSMo 534.330." While the Court is of the opinion that defendant's motion is out of time and must therefore be denied,¹ a brief discussion of the issue of state law raised by defendant may prove helpful.

Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to demand the precise amount of rent due on the precise day that the rent became due and that, therefore, the Court erred in awarding...