ELR Citation: ELR 20021
No(s). 00-1819 (8th Cir. Aug 17, 2001)

The court holds that a district court properly granted summary judgment to state and private landowners that a Native American tribe sued under the Quiet Title Act (QTA) in an effort to assert ownership of a North Dakota lake, but that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant summary judgment to the federal government in the same suit. The tribe claimed that an 1867 treaty required the federal government to hold title to the lake in trust for the tribe. The federal government claimed that it conveyed title to the lake to the state and that it reacquired partial title in 1971 in order to construct a public works project. The court first holds that the district court should have dismissed the tribe's claim against the federal government for lack of jurisdiction rather than entering summary judgment. The tribe's QTA action against the federal government is barred by the Act's 12-year statute of limitations. The tribe knew or should have known of the federal government's claim to the lake when the government reacquired portions of the lake in 1971, but it did not file its actions until 1986. The court next holds that a U.S. Department of the Interior associate solicitor's memorandum, which in 1976 stated that the tribe held title to the lake, did not constitute abandonment of the federal government's claim to the lake that would allow the tribe to measure the QTA statute of limitations from a later date. The federal government cannot abandon property without congressional authorization, and Congress never abandoned the 1971 claim. Likewise, the solicitor lacked authority to bond the government, the memo did not have the force of law, the government never adopted the memo or acted in a manner consistent with it, and the law-of-the case-doctrine does not apply to the memo. The court also holds that despite the tribe's claim that the federal government claimed different portions of the lake at different times, the QTA statute of limitations cannot be applied on a tract-by-tract basis, especially since the tribe's complaint avers that the government holds title to all of the lake in trust for the tribe. The court, however, holds that the district court properly dismissed the tribe's claims against the state and private landowners due to the tribe's inability to join the federal government. When the government claims an interest in land that squarely conflicts with the interest of a tribe, the government's presence in the litigation is nearly always required to assure effective adjudication.

Counsel for Appellant
Andrew M. Small
BlueDog, Olson & Small
5001 W. 80th St., Minneapolis MN 55437
(612) 893-1813

Counsel for Appellees
Charles Carvell
U.S. Attorney's Office
372 U.S. Post Office & CtHse.
220 E. Rosser Ave., Bismarck ND 58502
(701) 224-3640

Bye, J. Before Bright, J., dissenting, and Magill, J.