George v. United States
672 F.3d 942
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Forest Service road Shrine Mine Road (FDR 6819) traversed Hamilton land; road existed and was unobstructed at conveyance.
- 1979 land swap: government reserved easement and retained access across Hamilton’s newly acquired land.
- Forests regulations in 1977 prohibited fencing or obstructing Forest Service lands and roads; regulations published in Federal Register.
- Ms. George acquired the property in 2005 and began fencing across the road; the Service repeatedly removed fences and cited her.
- Ms. George filed Quiet Title Act suit in 2009; district court held the action time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g).
- Court’s decision: QTA limitations clock started by 1979 when predecessor should have known of the government’s claim to a fence-free road, resulting in an 18-year-based late filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the QTA limitations clock begin? | George asserts accrual only when the government makes an adverse action. | George’s predecessors should have known via the Federal Register and regulations. | Clock began by 1979; suit filed in 2009 was time-barred. |
| Does publication in the Federal Register trigger notice of a regulatory claim? | Regulations do not dictate the scope of a private easement. | Regulations subject the holder to notice of regulatory claims. | Yes; publication and being subject to or affected by the regulation start the clock. |
| Does the merits of the regulatory claim affect accrual? | Merits of the claim should not affect accrual timing. | Accrual depends on notice of the claim, not its validity. | Merits and validity do not affect accrual; notice suffices. |
| Are maintenance/erosion claims separately actionable after fence claim/time-barred? | Maintenance claims could survive if accrued later. | Argument forfeited below; no separate accrual analysis. | Maintenance/erosion claims forfeited; no independent survival. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2010) (QTA accrual based on government claim, not its merits)
- Rosette, Inc. v. United States, 141 F.3d 1394 (10th Cir. 1998) (Notice can arise from government claims adverse to plaintiff)
- Knapp v. United States, 636 F.2d 279 (10th Cir. 1980) (Accrual upon knowledge of any assertive government claim)
- Spirit Lake Tribe v. North Dakota, 262 F.3d 732 (8th Cir. 2001) (Claim need not be clear and unambiguous for accrual)
- Vincent Murphy Chevrolet Co. v. United States, 766 F.2d 449 (10th Cir. 1985) (Notice of government claim suffices for accrual)
- Diamond Ring Ranch, Inc. v. Morton, 531 F.2d 1397 (10th Cir. 1976) (Publication notice theories and statutory timing considerations)