Fletcher v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19171
10th Cir.2013Background
- Osage Nation lands were displaced; federal government placed mineral estate in trust and obligated to distribute royalties to individual Osage headright owners.
- 1906 Act created headright system; royalties and interest distributed quarterly pro rata to individual members; rolls determined membership.
- Over the years, headrights were transferred and fractionalized; Congress amended statutes restricting transfers.
- In 2002, William Fletcher and Charles Pratt, Osage headright holders, sued federal government for breach of trust and an accounting.
- District court dismissed; on appeal the court focuses solely on whether headright holders have a statutory right to an accounting.
- Court holds that §4011(a) imposes a duty to account to individual beneficiaries, not just to tribes, and reverses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §4011(a) confer a private right to an accounting on individual headright owners? | Headright owners have an enforceable right to accounting under §4011(a). | Accounting remedies are limited or directed to tribes, not individuals. | Yes; §4011(a) creates an accounting right for individual headright owners. |
| Is §162a(a)-(c) the source limiting the scope of the accounting duty to deposits only rather than disbursements? | Accounting covers both deposits and withdrawals to inform beneficiaries. | 162a(a)-(c) limit investment options, not the accounting obligation itself. | No; 162a(a)-(c) concern investments, while §4011(a) governs the accounting duty, including disbursements. |
| Can the Osage Nation’s settlement waiver bind individual headright holders to foreclose their claims? | Waivers cannot bind individuals; plaintiffs may pursue their own claims. | Nation’s waiver may bar individual claims. | Waiver issue rejected; rule that the district court’s waiver rationale was abandoned; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobell v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 808 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (recognizes accounting standard in Native American trust disputes)
- Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (statutory basis for government accounting in trust context)
- United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S. Ct. 2313 (U.S. 2011) (trust duties must follow statute; background trust principles may illuminate meaning)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (U.S. 2009) (private right of action need not be explicit; can be implied if fairly read)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (U.S. 2001) (statutory interpretation; respect congressional structure and presentment)
- Astoria Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n. v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1991) (background adjudicatory principles inform trust interpretation)
- Bryan v. Itasca Cnty., 426 U.S. 373 (U.S. 1976) (in Indian law, canons resolved in beneficiaries’ favor)