Vasko v. United States
581 F. App'x 894
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- In 1992 the McKinneys executed and recorded a Security Deed to secure a VA‑guaranteed loan; the deed was re‑recorded and assigned to Bank of Oklahoma in early 1993.
- Vasko lived at 3 Nathan Lane from about 1996, claiming she purchased the property from William Brown (a transaction not recorded and later admitted invalid) and alternatively claiming title by adverse possession.
- In 2011 the lender foreclosed; on November 8, 2011 the Bank transferred the property to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, who initiated eviction proceedings and retained a private law firm to prosecute the eviction.
- During eviction, a court ordered Vasko to pay monthly rent into court; she defaulted and was ordered evicted on April 13, 2012. Vasko alleges the government’s attorney told her she could stay by paying $600/month.
- Vasko sued in the Court of Federal Claims for breach of an oral contract (by the VA’s attorney) and for a taking; the Claims Court dismissed both claims for failure to state a claim. Vasko appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Vasko’s Argument | United States’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an oral agreement with the VA’s eviction counsel created a binding government contract | Vasko: the government’s attorney promised she could stay if she paid $600/month; that formed a contract | Gov: the private attorney lacked actual authority to bind the United States; other contract elements missing | Court: No plausible allegation of actual authority or other contract elements; contract claim dismissed |
| Whether Vasko had a cognizable property interest (adverse possession) supporting a takings claim | Vasko: she acquired title by adverse possession from 1996 onward | Gov: recorded Security Deed and recorded assignment gave constructive (and likely actual) notice, blocking adverse possession under Georgia law | Court: Constructive notice of the recorded deed/assignment defeated adverse possession; no protected property interest, so takings claim fails |
| Whether personal property (stove) must be returned or compensated | Vasko: seeks return/damages for a stove she installed | Gov: Security Deed’s fixture clause covers household appliances and authorized lender to collect fixtures | Court: Fixture clause permits repossession; no relief for Vasko |
Key Cases Cited
- Kam‑Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts plausibly suggesting entitlement to relief)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints judged under less stringent standards)
- Acceptance Ins. Cos., Inc. v. United States, 583 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir.) (Twombly applied in Claims Court context)
- Anderson v. United States, 344 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (elements required to form a binding contract with the government)
- Fed. Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947) (parties contracting with government must ascertain agent’s authority)
- Winter v. Cath‑dr/Balti Joint Venture, 497 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.) (actual authority, not apparent authority, required to bind the government)
- Adams v. United States, 391 F.3d 1212 (Fed. Cir.) (takings claim requires a protected private property interest)