United States v. Hess

No. 98-1127 (194 F.3d 1164) (10th Cir. November 5, 1999)

ELR Digest

The court vacates a district court decision granting summary judgment in favor of the United States in its action to quiet title to ownership of gravel located on a ranch acquired by a family as successors-in-interest following a land exchange patent issued under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. The court first holds that the district court erred in determining as a matter of law that gravel is a mineral for the purpose of the patent reservation at issue and, therefore, quieting title to the gravel in the government. The Indian Reorganization Act makes no mention of mineral reservations and, thus, does not statutorily mandate the reservation of minerals in patents issued under it. Instead, the Act provides the Secretary of the Interior with complete discretion to negotiate and issue exchange patents with or without mineral reservations so long as the lands exchanged are deemed of equal value. The court then holds that because Congress did not mandate a reservation of minerals in the Indian Reorganization Act, but provided the Secretary with discretion to make such reservations, no congressional intent or expectation existed as to the meaning of minerals in the patent at issue.

The court further holds that on remand, the district court should examine Colorado law and from it identify the governing rules for decision of the case. Seeing no compelling need for the development of a federal common law concerning the construction of reservations of mineral rights in instruments effecting land exchanges, the content of federal law should be determined by reference to state law. The court next holds that because the district court did not review extrinsic evidence in granting summary judgment to the government, the case must be remanded for further proceedings in order to interpret the reservation at issue. The district court must make a further inquiry into whether gravel is a mineral included in the reservation of the exchange patent, which in turn will resolve which party has title thereto.

The court next holds that the government is not barred from seeking trespass damages. The statute of limitations, which is 6 years and 90 days after the right of action accrues, was tolled until the time the government could have reasonably known of the family's extraction of gravel. Moreover, if the gravel is titled in the government, the family's gravel extractions over the years constitute a continuing trespass. On remand, therefore, damages for the family's continuing trespass, if any, should be computed 6 years and 90 days from the filing of the complaint. Last, the court holds that on remand, the district court should consider the family's argument that the United States should be estopped from asserting a claim to gravel deposits 50 years after issuing a patent to the predecessor-in-interest.

The full text of this opinion is available from ELR (33 pp., ELR Order No. L-125).

Counsel for Plaintiff
Elizabeth A. Peterson
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Counsel for Defendants
George R. Miller
McDaniel, Baty & Miller
1040 Main Ave., Durango CO 81301
(970) 247-1113

[30 ELR 20185]

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]