52 F.4th 916
11th Cir.2022Background
- Wisteria Island off Key West was created by U.S. dredging/spoil disposal in the 1920s and expanded by further wartime dredging in the 1940s; current extent claimed as 39 acres (approx. 21 above water).
- The Submerged Lands Act of 1953 transferred near-shore submerged lands to states but excepted “all lands filled in, built up, or otherwise reclaimed by the United States for its own use.”
- Florida attempted to sell the island in the 1920s and 1951; the federal government objected and President Coolidge reserved the area for naval purposes; F.E.B. acquired title in 1967.
- F.E.B. I (11th Cir.) held F.E.B.’s quiet-title claim time-barred but expressly left unresolved whether Wisteria Island fits the SLA exception (i.e., whether it was created for the U.S. “for its own use”).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the United States, declaring federal title to all 39 acres; F.E.B. appealed, challenging (inter alia) whether the island was created for the U.S.’s use, the exclusion of its experts, and preservation of an argument about submerged acres.
- The Court of Appeals held that a genuine issue of material fact exists about the United States’ intent in creating the island and remanded for trial; it affirmed the exclusion of certain expert testimony and upheld denial of post-judgment relief on waiver grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (F.E.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wisteria Island was "filled in... by the United States for its own use" under the Submerged Lands Act | Island was intentionally created/used as a designated storage/spoil area for dredged material; "storage" qualifies as a "use" | The spoil deposits were mere dumping/haphazard disposal with no intent of future use; dumping is not "use" | Intent is a factual question. If U.S. intended the island as a storage location for future spoils, the exception applies; genuine dispute exists — remand for trial (summary judgment vacated in part) |
| Admissibility of F.E.B.'s expert testimony on the statutory meaning of "for its own use" | Experts’ opinions invade judicial role interpreting statutes; should be excluded | Experts (linguist/grammatician) assist in textual/grammatical analysis and thus are helpful | District court did not abuse discretion excluding experts: statutory interpretation is for the judge and experts may not give legal conclusions |
| Whether submerged (below-water) portions are not "filled in" and thus not federal | U.S. sought title to all 39 acres and argued F.E.B. treated the subject property as 39 acres in litigation | Submerged seabed portions are "non-filled" and F.E.B. preserved this argument | F.E.B. failed to preserve/"plainly and prominently" present the submerged-land argument in summary-judgment briefing; denial of post-judgment relief not an abuse of discretion |
| Preclusive effect of prior appellate decision (F.E.B. I) and presumption favoring federal title | Prior panel’s statements establish the island was built by Navy contractors for government purpose; federal title should be affirmed | F.E.B. I left the merits open; it did not decide whether the SLA exception applies | F.E.B. I is not dispositive on the merits — it explicitly left the substantive question unresolved; presumption in favor of U.S. property rights does not resolve the factual intent inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- F.E.B. Corp. v. United States, 818 F.3d 681 (11th Cir. 2016) (prior appeal held F.E.B.’s quiet-title claim time-barred but left SLA-exception merits unresolved)
- United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947) (Supreme Court held near-offshore undersea floor belongs to the United States)
- California ex rel. State Lands Comm'n v. United States, 457 U.S. 273 (1982) (discussed application of SLA exception to lands formed by accretion around federal works)
- BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176 (2004) (statutory interpretation begins with the text and ordinary meaning at enactment)
- Commodores Ent. Corp. v. McClary, 879 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir. 2018) (expert testimony may not state legal conclusions; court decides statutory meaning)