Wapato Heritage, L.L.C. v. United States
637 F.3d 1033
9th Cir.2011Background
- MA-8 was granted in 1907 to Wapato John and held in trust by the United States for his heirs, including Evans, whose grandsons own Wapato Heritage, L.L.C.
- The Lease (No. 82-21) was signed in 1984 by the Secretary via the BIA for the Landowners, with Evans as Lessee and the Landowners as Lessor under the Lease definition.
- The Lease contains a 25-year term and an option to renew for up to 25 years, requiring written notice at least 12 months before expiration to the Lessor and the Secretary.
- Evans sent a 1985 renewal notice to the BIA but did not send it to the Landowners or via certified mail as required by the Lease.
- In 2007 the Tribe questioned the renewal and the BIA concluded Evans did not effectively exercise the option; Wapato sent late notices in 2007–2008 but not via certified mail or to current Lessor addresses.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the United States; on appeal, the Ninth Circuit held the BIA was not the Lessor and Evans/Wapato failed to properly exercise the renewal option.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the BIA the Lessor under the Lease? | Wapato argues BIA is Lessor under Lease terms. | Defendants contend Lessor is the Landowners, not the BIA. | BIA not the Lessor; lease not ambiguous. |
| Was Evans's renewal notice properly exercised under the Lease? | Evans timely exercised renewal per Lease terms. | Evans failed to comply with notice requirements to Landowners and/or certified mail. | Renewal not effectively exercised. |
| Did Wapato's post-deadline notices cure the defect in Evans's renewal? | Wapato attempted to confirm extension before deadline and relied on BIA acknowledgment. | Notice must be given under Section 29 to Lessor and Secretary with proper form, which did not occur. | No cure; extension invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Algoma Lumber Co., 305 U.S. 415 (1939) (government protection of Indian property does not imply contractual liability)
- McNabb v. United States, 54 Fed.Cl. 759 (2002) (BIA acts as approval official, not landlord under leases)
- Sangre de Cristo Dev. Co. v. United States, 932 F.2d 891 (10th Cir. 1991) (government not liable to third parties when contracting on behalf of tribes)
- Saguaro Chevrolet, Inc. v. United States, 77 Fed.Cl. 572 (2007) (rejects government-imposed landlord obligations in tribal leases)
- Kennewick Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 880 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1989) (contract interpretation and ambiguity standards)
- Saavedra v. Donovan, 700 F.2d 496 (9th Cir. 1983) (contract interpretation; written terms control when unambiguous)