ELR Citation: ELR 20300
No(s). 98-3160 (6th Cir. Jan 20, 2000)

The court affirms in part and reverses in part a district court grant of summary judgment to the government in a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) action against owners of a farm where the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) incurred response costs removing toxic waste. The property in question was acquired by the landowners through inheritance, except for a small portion purchased by one of the landowners from relatives whose interests were acquired through inheritance. In 1987, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) was notified of 55-gallon drums on the property and conducted an inspection. Subsequently, EPA became involved and a removal operation was conducted on the property.

The court first holds that the landowners did not dispose of hazardous substances on the property. Disposal requires human intervention, but the government presented no evidence that there was human activity involved in whatever movement of hazardous substances that occurred on the property after the landowners took title to the property. The court next holds that the landowners raised genuine issues of material fact with respect to every element of the "innocent landowner" defense with regard to the inherited land. The government failed to present any evidence that the landowners released hazardous substances after the acquisition of the property. Additionally, the landowners presented evidence that the OEPA never told them that remedial action was necessary. Moreover, there is no evidence that any third parties ever compromised the integrity of the drums or otherwise caused the release of their contents. The court further holds that with respect to the property acquired by quitclaim deed, the landowner raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she undertook all appropriate inquiry. Under the circumstances, where one part-owner by inheritance acquires an interest from another part-owner by inheritance, the level of "appropriate inquiry" is a very fact-specific question. The record contains no evidence of customary practice in such family transactions, the purchase price, or the property's value if uncontaminated. Therefore, the court cannot state as a matter of law that the landowner's actions were not "appropriate inquiry" under the circumstances at the time of sale.

The court additionally holds that a lien on the entire property, and not just the contaminated parcel, is appropriate. There is no evidence in the record that the parcels were, at any relevant time, considered separate for any purpose other than the land records. The court goes on to hold that EPA's response costs were proper. There is no evidence that removal of empty drums raised the costs significantly, that the empty drums would have been accepted by an ordinary landfill, or that such disposition would have been less costly than the actual disposition. Additionally, there is no evidence that an underground tank was removed. Finally, the court holds that the government's lien did not violate the due process rights of the landowners.

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

Counsel for Defendant
David S. Hoffmann
McMahon, DeGulis & Hoffmann
The Caxton Bldg.
812 Huron Rd., Ste. 650, Cleveland OH 44115
(216) 621-1312

Before Jones and Cole, JJ.