Swain County v. United States
16-531
| Fed. Cl. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- Swain County entered a 2010 settlement (the 2010 Agreement) with the DOI and TVA that replaced a 1943 agreement obligating the federal government to build the North Shore Road; the 2010 Agreement provided $12.8M paid in 2010 and contemplated up to $39.2M in additional payments "as are hereafter appropriated by Act of Congress... on or before December 31, 2020."
- The DOI requested appropriations in 2010–2012 but Congress did not expressly appropriate funds for the 2010 Agreement; a 2012 GAO opinion said DOI had discretion to use certain NPS lump-sum funds but no obligation to do so.
- Swain County sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking $39.2M for breach of contract, breach of implied duties (cooperation and good faith), anticipatory repudiation, and a declaratory judgment that certain NPS appropriations are available to satisfy the 2010 Agreement.
- The United States moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of Tucker Act jurisdiction because the asserted payments are not presently due and the requested declaratory relief is not within the limited equitable powers of the court.
- The court found the 2010 Agreement unambiguous: any additional sums are contingent on later congressional appropriation and performance need not occur until on or before Dec. 31, 2020, so Swain County has no right to presently due money damages and its claims are essentially anticipatory.
- The court also held the requested declaratory relief — a declaration that NPS appropriations are available to satisfy the 2010 Agreement — is beyond the Tucker Act’s limited equitable remedies and not necessary to resolve a claim for presently due money.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has Tucker Act jurisdiction over Swain's contract claims for the $39.2M | Swain: the government waived the appropriation condition and has breached duties (cooperation/good faith) making funds presently due | Government: payments are conditional on future Congressional appropriation and not presently due; claims are anticipatory | Held: No jurisdiction — payments are not presently due; claims are anticipatory and dismissed under RCFC 12(b)(1) |
| Whether an anticipatory repudiation occurred | Swain: repeated failure to request/disburse appropriations and refusal to assure payment amounts to repudiation | Government: no contractual duty to seek appropriations and performance deadline remains Dec. 31, 2020 | Held: No present repudiation; plain contract language defeats anticipatory-repudiation theory |
| Whether declaratory relief about NPS appropriations is within the Court's equitable powers under the Tucker Act | Swain: court should declare that NPS appropriations are available to satisfy the 2010 Agreement | Government: Tucker Act equitable relief is limited and declaratory relief sought does not fall within that scope nor is it necessary to resolve a present monetary claim | Held: No jurisdiction to grant that declaratory relief; it is not an authorized form of equitable relief and is unnecessary to resolve a presently due monetary claim |
| Whether plaintiff pleaded a money-mandating right or present entitlement to damages | Swain: contract and related duties create present entitlement | Government: no present entitlement because contractual payment depends on future Congressional action | Held: Plaintiff failed to plead a presently due money-mandating right; Tucker Act jurisdiction lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional but does not create money-mandating rights)
- United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (1969) (contract claims under Tucker Act must be for presently due money damages)
- Franconia Associates v. United States, 536 U.S. 129 (2002) (definition and effect of anticipatory repudiation)
- Ransom v. United States, 900 F.2d 242 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (contract must entitle plaintiff to money damages upon government's breach for Tucker Act jurisdiction)