Welty v. United States
16-1017
Fed. Cl.Dec 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are three siblings who own the Welty Farm in Cape Girardeau County, Missouri; they allege flooding and loss of productive cropland caused by a levee on neighbor Terry Givens’s property.
- Givens’s property was enrolled in USDA conservation programs (CRP) and plaintiffs allege USDA/NRCS/CCC approved, oversaw, or required construction/maintenance of the levee, which diverted floodwaters onto Welty Farm.
- Welty complained to NRCS and USACE beginning in 1999; NRCS correspondence and administrative appeals occurred, and Welty filed a federal suit in 2005 (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).
- Plaintiffs sued Givens in Missouri state court in 2014; affidavits and filings in that case disclosed Givens’s CRP enrollment and referenced the levee; plaintiffs filed the present takings complaint against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims on August 17, 2016.
- The Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (statute of limitations/accrual) and, alternatively, for failure to state a takings claim; the court found jurisdiction existed for initial review but granted dismissal on the merits under RCFC 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the takings claim is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (six-year statute) | Welty was unaware a permanent taking had occurred until 2013–2014; accrual suspended by concealment and stabilization doctrines | Welty knew of the levee and flooding by 1999 and had sufficient facts by 2005; claim accrued then and is time-barred | Court assumed allegations for jurisdictional purpose but evaluated accrual doctrines; jurisdiction exists but merits resolved against plaintiffs |
| Whether accrual suspension (concealment or inherently unknowable injury) excuses limitations | Government concealed its involvement (FOIA denial, confidential program records), so accrual was suspended | NRCS communications show openness and responsiveness; no concealment | Court rejected concealment: record showed NRCS correspondence and FOIA response; accrual suspension not established |
| Whether the stabilization doctrine (continuous physical process) postponed accrual until a permanent taking became clear | Gradual flooding from levee is a continuous process; plaintiffs plausibly alleged stabilization occurred only by 2013–2014 | Government disputes it ‘‘set in motion’’ the process and denies requisite government action to trigger stabilization | For jurisdictional analysis the court accepted plaintiffs’ allegations under Jan’s Helicopter; jurisdiction satisfied but merits still require proof of government action |
| Whether plaintiffs state a Fifth Amendment takings claim (government appropriation/coercion or agency) | USDA/CCC/NRCS oversight and CRP contracts effectively required maintenance of levee and appropriated a flowage easement across Welty Farm | Contracts were voluntary; any actions were Givens’s and not coerced by government; no government appropriation or agency/coercion alleged | Court held plaintiffs failed to plead coercive or appropriating government action; dismissal for failure to state a takings claim (12(b)(6)) granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (Tucker Act requires money-mandating source for jurisdiction)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (interpretation of money-mandating statutes)
- Mildenberger v. United States, 643 F.3d 938 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Takings Clause as Tucker Act jurisdictional basis)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (jurisdiction requires nonfrivolous allegation of money-mandating source and entitlement class)
- Young v. United States, 529 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 apply)
- Ingrum v. United States, 560 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (accrual suspension elements for takings claims)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc) (narrow application of accrual suspension)
- Welcker v. United States, 752 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (accrual/suspension framework)
- United States v. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 745 (1947) (stabilization doctrine for continuous physical takings)
- Applegate v. United States, 25 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (stabilization principles applied)
- Boling v. United States, 220 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (stabilization focuses on when permanent taking becomes clear)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (equitable tolling unavailable to extend limitations)