726 F.3d 1099
9th Cir.2013Background
- NAHASDA/IHBG program provides per-unit subsidies to Tribes/TDHEs, with subsidies ending when units are conveyed or conveyable.
- Fort Belknap TDHE claimed subsidies for units that had been conveyed or were conveyance-eligible, contrary to rules, prompting HUD to seek repayment.
- HUD issued 2001, 2005, and 2007 letters challenging MH unit eligibility and requesting unit-specific conveyance/doFA information.
- Fort Belknap failed to timely furnish requested information; HUD later concluded overpayments and proposed repayment adjustments across multiple years.
- In 2010 HUD determined an overpayment totaling $2,858,786 and outlined a repayment schedule, prompting administrative appeal to HUD and then this petition.
- Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding HUD did not impose a remedy listed in §4161(a)(1) and that recovery could be pursued under the payment-by-mistake doctrine (Mead).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under §4161(d) exists? | Fort Belknap contends §4161(d) authorizes review of HUD actions. | HUD argues jurisdiction only where §4161(a)(1) sanctions are imposed. | No jurisdiction; HUD did not impose a §4161(a)(1) sanction. |
| Whether HUD's actions constituted 'taking action' under §4161(d)? | Fort Belknap asserts HUD's repayment plan counts as a §4161(a)(1) remedy. | HUD contends the repayment plan is not a §4161(a)(1) remedy due to its language and timing. | Remedy not within §4161(a)(1); jurisdiction lacking. |
| Can HUD recover under payment-by-mistake doctrine instead of §4161? | Fort Belknap disputes the need to rely on §4161 for recovery. | HUD may recover overpayments under Mead when payments were made by mistake. | HUD may recover under Mead; §4161 does not confer jurisdiction here. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mead Corp., 426 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1970) (recovery of payments made by mistake when mistaken belief was material to payment)
- In re Corrinet, 645 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2011) (jurisdictional scrutiny and administrative remedies under NAHASDA)