Long v. Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation

No. 99-4243 (236 F.3d 910) (8th Cir. January 4, 2001)

ELR Digest

The court holds that the Quiet Title Act's 12-year statute of limitations barred a landowner's action to quiet title to a right of access to his property through the southern half of an adjoining park in South Dakota that was condemned by the federal government in 1949. The landowner was able to reach his property from the south by using a park road. In 1988, however, the park road was blocked by a fence, leaving him only able to reach his property through the north or through a locked gate in the south. The landowner claimed that his right to use the road was never taken during the 1949 condemnation and, thus, he sought to quiet title to that right.

The court first holds that the landowner's quiet title action is time barred because the landowner's predecessor-in-interest was a party to the condemnation and was aware that the land in question was to be taken in fee simple absolute with no residual interests remaining. Therefore, the condemnation placed the predecessor-in-interest on reasonable notice in 1949 of the government's claim, and the 12-year statute of limitations ran from that point. The court next holds that even if the landowner's action was not time barred, it would fail because in seeking an undifferentiated right to use a public road, the landowner does not claim a property interest to which title may be quieted. The court then holds that the federal government is not estopped from denying the landowner access over its fee title to the land after condemnation. Although a state official allegedly promised the landowner continued access to his property from the south, the promises made by state officials cannot estop the federal government from asserting its fee simple title in the property. The court similarly holds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the landowner's claims that the state should be estopped from denying him a license to access his property while the park is in the state's possession. Since the state has not consented to the landowner's lawsuit, the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the court from asserting jurisdiction. Moreover, the court cannot grant the landowner the equitable relief he seeks from a state official. The landowner claims that by preventing him from gaining access to his property, the state, acting through the state official, has taken his property without just compensation. However, equitable relief is not available to enjoin an alleged taking of private property when a suit for compensation can be brought against the sovereign. Since the landowner can bring a common-law action for damages against the state depriving him of his right of access, equitable relief in federal court is unavailable.

The full text of this decision is available from ELR (14 pp., ELR Order No. L-317).

Counsel for Appellant
Andrew B. Reid
Law Offices of Andrew B. Reid
1075 Waite Dr., Boulder CO 80303
(303) 554-1693

Counsel for Appellees
Gary L. Richter, Sr. Staff Attorney
Department of Game, Fish, and Parks
523 E. Capitol St., Pierre SD 57501
(605) 773-6050

[31 ELR 20365]

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]