Vasko v. United States
112 Fed. Cl. 204
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Ms. Vasko, a pro se plaintiff, filed a three-page complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging breach of contract and seeking damages.
- Plaintiff added takings and due process theories to an amended complaint and later sought to withdraw/strike it; defendant refiled its motion to dismiss.
- Property at issue is 1721 Nathan Lane, Austell, Georgia, with chain-of-title and ownership disputes involving McKinney, Brown, Bank of Oklahoma, and the VA under the VA Home Loan Program.
- Georgia dispossessory proceedings in Cobb County culminated in a writ of possession in favor of the VA on March 2, 2012, with rent-into-court orders and an eviction timeline.
- Plaintiff alleged a verbal rental contract with the VA via attorney Shurtz, but the court found no authority or privity to bind the United States to a contract.
- The court ultimately dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim, and granted judgment in favor of the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tucker Act jurisdiction supports a contract claim against the United States. | Vasko claims an express/implicit contract with the US. | No privity/authority to bind the US; no contract. | No jurisdiction or contract; claims dismissed. |
| Whether plaintiff adequately pleads a breach of contract with the United States. | There was an oral rental agreement with the VA via Shurtz. | No mutual intent, offer/acceptance, or authority. | Breach claim failing for lack of contract elements. |
| Whether plaintiff states a valid takings claim regarding real or personal property. | Taking without just compensation. | Plaintiff lacked cognizable property interest and no public-use taking. | Takings claims dismissed for lack of cognizable property interest and public-use element. |
| Whether due process or tort claims are within this court's jurisdiction. | Due process/tort claims entitlement under Tucker Act. | Due process and tort claims are not money-mandating; outside Tucker Act. | No jurisdiction for due process or tort claims. |
| Whether collateral estoppel or other defenses bar the claims. | Not explicitly stated. | Taken as argued within Tucker Act framework. | Not necessary to resolve beyond dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly, Bell Atl. Corp. v., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires plausible, non-conclusory facts to state a claim)
- Iqbal, Ashcroft v., 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading facts supporting claim)
- Adair v. United States, 497 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (money-mandating statute analysis for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Murdock v. United States, 103 Fed.Cl. 389 (Fed. Cl. 2012) (12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim in the Court of Federal Claims)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (liberal construction for pro se pleadings)
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1936) (jurisdictional proof burden on plaintiff)