Wolfchild v. United States

• Decision Date: 21 December 2010
• Docket Number: No. 01-568L,No. 03-2684L,03-2684L,01-568L
• Parties: SHELDON PETERS WOLFCHILD, et al, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

SHELDON PETERS WOLFCHILD, et al, Plaintiffs,

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 03-2684L

No. 01-568L

United States Court of Federal Claims.

Filed: December 21, 2010

Indian monetary claims based upon the Sioux Treaties of August 5, 1851 and June 19, 1858, the Acts of February 16, 1863, and March 3, 1863, and the Appropriation Acts for the Department of the Interior in 1888, 1889, and 1890; subject matter jurisdiction based upon the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1505; amendment of complaints of plaintiffs and intervening plaintiffs; RCFC 15(a); applicability of Indian Trust Accounting Statute to toll statute of limitations; partial summary judgment

Erick G. Kaardal, Mohrman & Kaardal, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for Wolfchild plaintiffs. With him on the briefs were William F. Mohrman, Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A., Minneapolis, MN.

Jody H. Schwarz, Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With her on the briefs were Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General, and Sam Costello and Daniel Steele, Trial Attorneys, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Of counsel was James Porter, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

John Ernst Jacobson, Jacobson, Buffalo, Magnuson, Anderson & Hogen, P.C., St. Paul, MN, for intervening plaintiff Lower Sioux Indian Community.

Jack E. Pierce, Pierce Law Firm, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for the Cermak plaintiffs and for the Stephens, R. Cermak, J. Cermak, Henderson, Klingberg, Alkire, Arnold, and Godoy groups of intervening plaintiffs.

Kelly H. Stricherz, Vermillion, SD, for the Mozak group of intervening plaintiffs.

Garrett J. Horn, Horn Law Office, Yankton, SD, for the Saul, Trudell, Taylor, Ferris, Henry, and Vassar groups of intervening plaintiffs.

Creighton A. Thurman, Yankton, SD, for the Cournoyer, Robinette, Kimbell, French, and Wanna groups of intervening plaintiffs.

Elizabeth T. Walker, Walker Associates, Alexandria, VA, for the anonymous Walker group of intervening plaintiffs.

Robin L. Zephier, Abourezk & Zephier, PC, Rapid City, SD, for the Zephier group of intervening plaintiffs.

Larry Leventhal, St. Paul, MN, for the Burley group of intervening plaintiffs.

Wood R. Foster, Jr., Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for the Lafferty, Blaeser, Whipple, and Lowe groups of intervening plaintiffs.

Michael W. Ellwanger, Rawlings, Nieland, Probasco, Killinger, Ellwanger, Jacobs & Mohrhauser, LLP, Sioux City, IA, for the Enyard and Kitto groups of intervening plaintiffs.

Bernard J. Rooney, Amherst, WI, for the Rooney group of intervening plaintiffs.

Scott A. Johnson, Johnson Law Group, Minnetonka, MN, for the Rocque group of intervening plaintiffs.

James L. Blair, Renaud, Cook, Drury, Mesaros, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for the anonymous Blair group of intervening plaintiffs. With him on the briefs was Barry P. Hogan, Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, PA, Phoenix, AZ.

Gary J. Montana, Montana & Associates, Osseo, WI, for the Julia DuMarce group of intervening plaintiffs.

Nicole N. Emerson, Lynn, Jackson, Shultz & Lebrun, PC, Sioux Falls, SD, for the Garreau group of intervening plaintiffs.

Douglas Kettering, Kettering Law Office, Yankton, SD, for the Ke Zephier group of intervening plaintiffs.

Randy V. Thompson, Nolan, MacGregor, Thompson & Leighton, St. Paul, MN, for the Abrahamson group of intervening plaintiffs.

Frances Felix, pro se, Minneapolis, MN, for herself and members of her immediate family as intervening plaintiffs.

Royce Deryl Edwards, Jr., Joplin, MO, for the Vadnais group of intervening plaintiffs.

Rory King, Bantz, Gosch & Cremer, LLC, Aberdeen, SD, for the Marvel Jean DuMarce group and the Youngbear group.

Brian L. Radke, Radke Law Office, P.C., Sioux Falls, SD for the Schroder group of intervening plaintiffs.

OPINION AND ORDER

LETTOW, Judge.

This case arises under the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1505, and comes before the court for proceedings on remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after that court's decision on an interlocutory appeal of questions certified by this court. See Wolfchild v. United States, 559 F.3d 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("Wolfchild VI"), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 2090 (2010). The issues on remand are complex, reflecting both the convoluted and lengthy history of the federal government's relationship with the group of Indians who are plaintiffs and the extensive prior proceedings in this litigation.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs are lineal descendants of Mdewakanton Sioux Indians who were loyal to the United States and assisted white settlers in Minnesota during the 1862 Sioux uprising ("the loyal Mdewakanton" or "1886 Mdewakanton"). See Wolfchild v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 521, 524 (2004) ("Wolfchild I"). Approximately 20, 750 persons have joined in this litigation as plaintiffs.¹ On October 27, 2004, the court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that a trust for the benefit of the loyal Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants was created in connection with and as a consequence of appropriations statutes enacted in 1888, 1889, and 1890 ("Appropriation Acts"), providing money to the Department of the Interior ("the Department") for the benefit of the loyal Mdewakanton and their families. See Wolfchild I, 62 Fed. Cl. at 555.²

The court concluded that the relationship created pursuant to the Appropriations Acts contained the three traditional elements of a trust: a trustee (the United States), specific beneficiaries (the 1886 Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants), and trust property acquired by the Department using the appropriated funds (the 1886 lands, improvements to those lands, and funds derived from those lands). See Wolfchild I, 62 Fed. Cl. at 541. The court found additional evidence that a trust was created by looking to the arrangements made by the Department for the use of the 1886 lands by the loyal Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants over the years following acquisition of those lands. See id. at 541-43. Ninety years of detailed management of the 1886 lands by the Department, including its assigning rights of use to particular loyal Mdewakanton, monitoring beneficiaries' use of the lands, and leasing non-assigned land to third parties, and the Department's own repeated characterization of the 1886lands as being held "in trust" for the loyal Mdewakanton, further persuaded the court that a trust relationship was created as a consequence of the assignment system. See id.³

The court also held that the Act of December 19, 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-557, 94 Stat. 3262 ("1980 Act"), which provided that the government would thereafter hold the 1886 lands in trust for three Indian communities located in Minnesota ("the three communities")⁴ did not alter or terminate the trust for the loyal Mdewakanton. See Wolfchild I, 62 Fed. Cl. at 543-44. Consequently, the court concluded that actions taken in December 1980 and thereafter, including the Department of Interior's disbursement of funds derived from the 1886 lands to the three communities, constituted a breach of that trust. See id. at 555.

Approximately two and one half years after the court's ruling in Wolfchild I, the government interposed a motion to certify the court's decisions in Wolfchild I, Wolfchild II, and Wolfchild III for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d). See Wolfchild v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 472 (2007) ("Wolfchild V"). The court granted the government's motion in part and certified the following two questions for interlocutory review by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:

(1) Whether a trust was created in connection with and as a consequence of the 1888, 1889, and 1890 Appropriations Acts for the benefit of the loyal Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants, which trust included land, improvements to land, and monies as the corpus; and

(2) If the Appropriations Acts created such a trust, whether Congress terminated that trust with enactment of the 1980 Act.

The Court of Appeals granted interlocutory appeal of those two questions and in due course reversed this court's conclusion regarding both certified questions. See Wolfchild VI, 559 F.3d 1228, 1231. Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged that "Interior Department officials at times characterized the 1886 lands as being held in trust for the 1886 Mdewakantons and their descendants[,]" id. at 1241, it decided that "the key question regarding the rights at issue in this case is not whether the 1886 lands were held 'in trust' for the 1886 Mdewakanton descendants to whom they were assigned, but rather what rights were conferred in the assigned lands." Id. at 1248-49. The Court of Appeals held that that the Appropriations Acts did not create a trust for the benefit of the loyal Mdewakanton nor did they vest any title, legal or otherwise, in that group. Id. at 1240-41, 1249. Rather, it determined that "the Appropriations Acts are best interpreted as merely appropriating funds subject to a statutory use restriction." Id. at 1240 (emphasis added). Under that view of the Appropriations Acts, the Court of Appeals concluded that the 1886 lands "were being held by the Department of the Interior for use by the 1886 Mdewakantons and their descendants pending an ultimate legislative determination as to how the ownership interests in the lands should be allocated." Id. at 1255. Regarding the second certified question, the Court of Appeals found that the 1980 Act furnished that "ultimate legislative determination" by creating a trust for the benefit of the three communities, thereby terminating any trust that would have been created by the Appropriations Acts. Id. at 1255, 1259-60. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to this court to address the issue of "whether it was lawful for the Interior Department, following the 1980 Act, to transfer to the three communities...