Charley E Johnson Revocable Living Trust v. United States of America
2:22-cv-01339
D. Ariz.Feb 26, 2024Background
- Charley Johnson purchased 21 acres in Gila County, Arizona in 2006, believing it included a house, well, corrals, and other structures.
- A subsequent survey in 2007 revealed the improvements were actually on adjacent National Forest System (NFS) land owned by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
- Johnson spent about a decade negotiating with the USFS for purchase of the affected NFS land under the Small Tracts Act, ultimately being offered only 0.59 acres (containing the house, barn, and well, but not most corrals).
- The USFS set the purchase price at $27,000, based on an appraisal using comparisons to similar local residential properties.
- After completing the sale, Johnson sued under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), alleging the USFS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in limiting the land size and accepting the appraisal value.
- Johnson moved for summary judgment; the government countered and moved for judgment in its favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| USFS modification of land sold (limiting to 0.59 acres) | Reduction arbitrary/capricious; corrals improperly excluded | STA gives USFS broad discretion; acted within regulatory guidelines | For Defendant: USFS complied with required factors/regulations; decision not arbitrary/capricious |
| Appraisal and purchase price determination | Appraisal did not comply with federal standards; improper highest/best use, zoning, comparables, failed to consider landlocking | Appraisal followed required standards; comparable data limited but appraisal justified | For Defendant: No demonstration of error or that alternate approach would yield different result |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (APA standard for when agency action is arbitrary/capricious; court must find rational connection between facts found and action taken)
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (judicial review focus is administrative record)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (narrow exception to judicial review for agency discretion, but not if regulations guide agency's decision-making)
- Occidental Eng’g Co. v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 766 (summary judgment standard in review of agency administrative actions)