- Location
- Desert Beach So Cal
When you folks are in Moab, remember where San Juan County is (and who has a true "interest" in the management of the public lands (motorized recreationists)?
*********
Dear Friend,
I thought that, as a friend of Mountain States Legal
Foundation, you would enjoy reading my monthly column,
"Summary Judgment".
I welcome your comments and suggestions.
Sincerely,
William Perry Pendley
President and Chief Legal Officer
P.S. If you would like to support the work of Mountain
States Legal Foundation, please click here.
LOST IN TRANSLATION: "INTERESTED" v. "HAVING AN INTEREST"
In Bill Murray's Academy Award nominated performance in Lost
in Translation, his character, Bob Harris, a washed-up actor
relegated to whiskey commercials in Japan, sleepwalks
through his days and nights in a mental fog induced by
jetlag, insomnia, and the indecipherable language and
inscrutable ways of the Japanese. At least Bob Harris had
an excuse; a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit leaves one wondering how the distinction
between being "interested" and "having an interest" got lost
in translation.
In San Juan County, Utah v. United States of America, et
al., two members of a three-judge panel ruled recently that
environmental groups may intervene in a Quiet Title Act
lawsuit filed by San Juan County to obtain rights the County
argues it has to Salt Creek Road in Canyonlands National
Park in southeastern Utah. Although the groups admit they
possess no legal interest in the road, they argue that,
because they are interested in how the road is managed, they
may be a party in a lawsuit filed to decide who owns the
interest claimed by San Juan County. The panel ruled being
"interested" is enough; the groups need not claim an
"interest" in land to participate, a shocking ruling given
the nature of the Quiet Title Act.
Congress enacted the Quiet Title Act due to the inability of
property owners, as a result of the doctrine of sovereign
immunity and its bar to lawsuits against the United States,
to obtain judicial relief whenever the United States
asserted an interest adverse to theirs. For decades,
landowners, including States, tried a variety of mechanisms,
including: persuading the United States to file a quiet
title action against them; asking Congress or the Executive
to grant discretionary relief; filing "officer's suits"
against federal officials in charge of the land; or, for
those willing to accept monetary damages instead of title to
the disputed land, filing damage claims seeking "just
compensation." None of these was fully satisfactory; in
fact, in 1962, the Supreme Court barred "officer's suits."
Therefore, in 1972, Congress adopted 28 U.S.C. § 2409a,
which provides:
The United States may be named as a party defendant in a
civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed
title to real property in which the United States claims an
interest. The complaint shall set forth with particularity
the nature of the right, title, or interest which the
plaintiff claims in the real property, the circumstances
under which it was acquired, and the right, title, or
interest claimed by the United States.
Using the Quiet Title Act, property owners across the West
have sued to obtain rights guaranteed them by their patents,
titles, or the common or statutory law, rights that federal
agencies have denied them. By law, there are only two
parties to those actions: he who asserts an interest in
property and the United States, when it has acted adverse to
that interest. Thus, it is in the San Juan County case;
that is, it was until the Tenth Circuit panel ruled. San
Juan County should ask the entire Tenth Circuit to rehear
the case.
If rehearing is granted, the Tenth Circuit will be advised
that Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent make clear
that the environmental groups lack both an interest in the
property and a legally protected interest in the litigation,
which is reserved, by federal statute, to those who assert
an interest in property. The groups may be interested in
how the road is managed, whoever owns it, but so do millions
of others who have no right to intervene.
Although the motivation of Bill Murray's Bob Harris was
clear, the motivation for the Tenth Circuit panel is
unknown, although some have their suspicions. The effect,
unless the decision is reversed, is obvious: environmental
groups and their multimillion dollar treasuries will make it
exponentially more difficult for property owners to quiet
title to their property.
If you would like to support Mountain States Legal Foundation,
click here. MSLF’s sole source of support is the
tax-deductible contributions it receives from people like you.
============================================================
If you would like to unsubscribe from the Mountain States
Legal Foundation Monthly Columns or update your e-mail
address, please click here.
============================================================
Mountain States Legal Foundation
2596 South Lewis Way
Lakewood, Colorado 80227
********
*********
Dear Friend,
I thought that, as a friend of Mountain States Legal
Foundation, you would enjoy reading my monthly column,
"Summary Judgment".
I welcome your comments and suggestions.
Sincerely,
William Perry Pendley
President and Chief Legal Officer
P.S. If you would like to support the work of Mountain
States Legal Foundation, please click here.
LOST IN TRANSLATION: "INTERESTED" v. "HAVING AN INTEREST"
In Bill Murray's Academy Award nominated performance in Lost
in Translation, his character, Bob Harris, a washed-up actor
relegated to whiskey commercials in Japan, sleepwalks
through his days and nights in a mental fog induced by
jetlag, insomnia, and the indecipherable language and
inscrutable ways of the Japanese. At least Bob Harris had
an excuse; a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit leaves one wondering how the distinction
between being "interested" and "having an interest" got lost
in translation.
In San Juan County, Utah v. United States of America, et
al., two members of a three-judge panel ruled recently that
environmental groups may intervene in a Quiet Title Act
lawsuit filed by San Juan County to obtain rights the County
argues it has to Salt Creek Road in Canyonlands National
Park in southeastern Utah. Although the groups admit they
possess no legal interest in the road, they argue that,
because they are interested in how the road is managed, they
may be a party in a lawsuit filed to decide who owns the
interest claimed by San Juan County. The panel ruled being
"interested" is enough; the groups need not claim an
"interest" in land to participate, a shocking ruling given
the nature of the Quiet Title Act.
Congress enacted the Quiet Title Act due to the inability of
property owners, as a result of the doctrine of sovereign
immunity and its bar to lawsuits against the United States,
to obtain judicial relief whenever the United States
asserted an interest adverse to theirs. For decades,
landowners, including States, tried a variety of mechanisms,
including: persuading the United States to file a quiet
title action against them; asking Congress or the Executive
to grant discretionary relief; filing "officer's suits"
against federal officials in charge of the land; or, for
those willing to accept monetary damages instead of title to
the disputed land, filing damage claims seeking "just
compensation." None of these was fully satisfactory; in
fact, in 1962, the Supreme Court barred "officer's suits."
Therefore, in 1972, Congress adopted 28 U.S.C. § 2409a,
which provides:
The United States may be named as a party defendant in a
civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed
title to real property in which the United States claims an
interest. The complaint shall set forth with particularity
the nature of the right, title, or interest which the
plaintiff claims in the real property, the circumstances
under which it was acquired, and the right, title, or
interest claimed by the United States.
Using the Quiet Title Act, property owners across the West
have sued to obtain rights guaranteed them by their patents,
titles, or the common or statutory law, rights that federal
agencies have denied them. By law, there are only two
parties to those actions: he who asserts an interest in
property and the United States, when it has acted adverse to
that interest. Thus, it is in the San Juan County case;
that is, it was until the Tenth Circuit panel ruled. San
Juan County should ask the entire Tenth Circuit to rehear
the case.
If rehearing is granted, the Tenth Circuit will be advised
that Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent make clear
that the environmental groups lack both an interest in the
property and a legally protected interest in the litigation,
which is reserved, by federal statute, to those who assert
an interest in property. The groups may be interested in
how the road is managed, whoever owns it, but so do millions
of others who have no right to intervene.
Although the motivation of Bill Murray's Bob Harris was
clear, the motivation for the Tenth Circuit panel is
unknown, although some have their suspicions. The effect,
unless the decision is reversed, is obvious: environmental
groups and their multimillion dollar treasuries will make it
exponentially more difficult for property owners to quiet
title to their property.
If you would like to support Mountain States Legal Foundation,
click here. MSLF’s sole source of support is the
tax-deductible contributions it receives from people like you.
============================================================
If you would like to unsubscribe from the Mountain States
Legal Foundation Monthly Columns or update your e-mail
address, please click here.
============================================================
Mountain States Legal Foundation
2596 South Lewis Way
Lakewood, Colorado 80227
********
