## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t2,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT J A M ES A . W I N G ER S, P l a i n t i ff / Co u n t e r c l a i mD e fe n d a n t/A p p e llan t, v. J E NNI E M . S WEE T ; L OU D. S WEE T , a n d a n ya n d a l l u n k n o wn per s ons w ho cl ai m anyi nt er es ti n the s ubj ectm at t erof thi s act i on, D efen dan t s/ C ross cl ai m -D efen dan t s, and UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , D efe ndant/ C r os s cl ai m - Pl ai nt i ff/ C ount er cl ai m - Pl ai nt i ff/ A ppel l ee, and SECRETARY OF A GR I CU LTUR E; U N I TED STA TES FO RE ST SERVI CE, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 04- 1329 (D . C . N o . 0 0 -M W -24 0 4 -(O E S ))

(D . C o lo .)A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . T he part i es cons ent ed t o t he exe r ci s e of j ur i s di ct i on bya magi s tr at e j udge. 1 -2- ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and BROR BY , C i rcui tJudg es. Pl ai nt i ff a nd count er cl ai m defe ndant , J ames A . W i nger s , appea l s fr om an or derof a U ni t ed M agi s t r at e J udge gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof 1 defe ndant s t he U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca, t he Secr et aryof A gr i cul tur e, and the U ni t ed St at es For es tSer vi ce on hi s cl ai m s forr ecor d t i t l e and a dver s e pos s es s i on, a n d in fa v o r o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s o n its c o u n te rc la im fo r r e c o rd title . W e a ffir m .

B ackgr ound T he pr oper t yati s s ue i n t hi s cas e i s an appr oxi m at e s i x- acr e pat ent ed m in in g c laim k n o w n a s th e S n o w flak e L o d e M in in g C laim (S n o w flak e ). It is lo c a ted in th e W h ite R iv e r N a tio n a l F o re st, a b o u t tw o m iles so u th o f A sp e n , in P itk in C o u n ty, C o lo ra d o .Pi t ki n C ount ycont i nued t o ow n the Snow fl ake unt i l 1994 w hen i tw as 2 convey ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es , al though i tl eas ed the mi ner al r i ght s t o a company pur s uantt o a l eas e thatexpi r ed i n 1994. N onethel es s , fr om 1949 thr ough 1994, n o p ro p e rt yta x e s w e re a s s e s s e d b e c a u s e c o u n ty-o w n e d p ro p e rt yis ta x e x e m p t. C o lo . R e v . S ta t. § 3 9 -3 -1 0 5 . -3- T he undi s put ed, m at er i al fac t s conce rni ng the Snow fl ake be gan more than one hundr ed y ear s ago w i t h t he r ecor di ng of a l ocat i on cert i fi cat e i n 1881, and the i s s uance of a pa t enti n 1887. B y1889, M . J . O rrhad ac qui r ed the Snow fl ake by s ever al m es ne conve y ance s ; how everi n 1892, i tw as acqui r ed byJ enni e M . Sw eet vi a a tr eas ur er ’ s deed. Pr oper t yt axes w er e l as tpai d on the Snow fl ake i n 1911 by L o u D . S w e e t, an d o n D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 1 9 1 2 , the S n o w flak e w a s o ffe re d a t a ta x sa le byt he Pi t ki n C ount yT r eas ur er . T her e w er e no bi dder s atthe t ax s al e, and the Snow fl ake w as s t ruck off t o Pi t ki n C ountythr ough a tr eas ur er ’ s cert i fi cat e of pur chas e. In Feb ruary19 49 , t he P i t kin C ou ntyT reas ureri ssued a N oti ce of P urchase of R eal E s t at e atT ax Sal e and of A ppl i cat i on forI s s uance of Tre as ur er ’ s D eed for th e S n o w fla k e , a c o p yo f w h ic h w a s s e n t to W a ld e n S w e e t b yre g is te re d m a il. M r . Sw eets i gned fort he not i ce on M ar ch 3, 1949. W hen ther e w as no r es pons e, a t reas urer ’s deed i ssued t o the Pitkin C ou ntyB oard of C ou ntyC om m i ssi on ers , w hi ch w as r ecor ded on A pr i l 18, 1949. 2 I n J ul y1976, Pi t ki n C ountypas s ed and r ecor ded a r es ol ut i on conce rni ng num er ous m i ni ng cl ai m s t hati thad obt ai ned byt r eas ur er ’ s deeds , i ncl udi ng the Snow fl ake. T he r es ol ut i on r ecogni zed thatt he cl ai m s w er e l ocat ed w i thi n theA “w i l d deed” i s defi ned as “[a ] r ecor ded dee d thati s noti n the cha i n of 3 t i t l e . . . . ” B l ack’s Law D i ct i onar y 4 4 6 (8th ed . 2 0 0 4 ). -4- W hi t e R i verN at i onal For es tand s t at ed thattheyw er e “us eful and nec es s aryfor pr es entpubl i c open s pace and parks and r ecr eat i on. ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I V at 326- 27. A nd i n J ul y 1988, bas ed on num er ous “w i l d deeds ” bei ng fi l ed on 3 c o u n ty -o w n e d m in in g c laim s, th e C o u n tyre c o rd e d a P u b lic N o tice in th e c o u n ty re c o rd s a s s e rt in g its o w n e rs h ip o f n u m e ro u s p ro p e rt ie s , in c lu d in g th e S n o w fla k e . T o fur t herdemonstr at e i t s ow ner s hi p, t he C ountyhi r ed per s onnel t o l ocat e and in sp e c t v a rio u s c laim s, in c lu d in g th e S n o w flak e , an d h a d th e p ro p e rtyp o ste d w ith s i gns : “Pi t ki n C ount yPubl i c Park A nd O pen Space W el come Pl eas e Pack Y our T r as h. ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . V at419. Pl ai nt i ff’ s chai ns of t i t l e bega n w i th tw o “w i l d deeds ” r ecor ded i n 1975 and 1979, and conve y ed t o hi m i n 1978 and 1980. I n M ay1994, C ongr es s enac t ed the Exchange A ct , Publ i c Law N o. 1 0 3 -2 5 5 , 1 0 8 S tat. 6 8 4 (1 9 9 4 ), p u rsu a n t to w h ich P itk in C o u n tya g re e d to excha nge ce r t ai n l ands , i ncl udi ng t he Snow fl ake, fora 230- acr e par cel ow ned by t he U ni t ed St at es . A s partof the exc hange, t he C ountyconvey ed the Snow fl ake t o t he U ni t ed St at es bya qui tcl ai m deed, w hi ch w as r ecor ded on A ugus t17, 1 9 9 4 . T h e S n o w fla k e th e n b e c a m e p a rt o f th e W h ite R iv e r N a tio n a l F o re s t. Pl ai nt i ff f

i l ed hi s qui ett i t l e ac t i on agai ns tt he U ni t ed St at es i n N ovember2000.-5-

In O ctob er 2 0 0 2 , the P itk in C o u n tyT rea su rer issue d a c o rrected tr ea su rer’s deed fort he Snow fl ake, w hi ch expl ai ned thatthe 1912 t ax s al e w as hel d l at e due t o “[l ] ack of

offi ce he l p and t i m e forthe pr epar at i on and publ i cat i on of the not i ce i n t he new s paper . ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . V at455. T o cur e anycl oud on the t i t l e, Pi t ki n C ount yexec ut ed anotherqui tcl ai m deed t o the U ni t ed St at es on J anuary22, 2003. S t a n d a r d o f Re v i e w T h e Q u iet T itl e A c t p e rm its law su its a g a in st th e fe d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t “to adj udi cat e a di s put ed t i t l e t o r eal pr opertyi n w hi ch the U ni t ed St at es cl ai m s an i nter est. . . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 40 9a(a) . A l tho ug h the part i es’ res pecti ve clai m s ar i se undera fe der al s t atut e, ques t i ons i nvol vi ng r eal pr opertyr i ght s ar e det erm i ned by s ta te la w u n le s s fe d e ra l la w re q u ir e s a d iffe re n t r e s u lt. O r egon ex r el . Stat e Land B oar d v. C or val l is Sand & G r avelC o. , 4 2 9 U .S . 3 6 3 , 3 7 8 -8 1 (1 9 7 7 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. O ’B l ock , 7 8 8 F .2 d 1 4 3 3 , 1 4 3 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ); A m oco Prod. C o. v. Uni t ed Stat es , 6 1 9 F .2 d 1 3 8 3 , 1 3 8 9 n . 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, vi ew i ng t he ev i den ce and draw i ng t he reasonab l e i nferences t herefrom i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . G os s et tv. O kla. ex r el . B d. of R egents f

or L a n gsto n Un iv ., 2 4 5 F .3 d 1 1 7 2 , 1 1 7 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te if

th e re a re n o g e n u in e iss u e s o f m a ter ial fa c t an d th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . Id. at1175. W hen appl y i ng C ol or ado-6-

law , the d istric t co u rt sh o u ld a sc e rta in a n d a p p lyth e sta te la w to re a c h th e re su lt th e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt w o u ld re a c h if fa c e d w ith th e s a m e q u e s tio n . C o op e rm a n v . D a v id , 214 F. 3d 1162, 1164 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . W e al s o r evi ew the d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s a p p lic a tio n o f s ta te la w d e n o v o . Id. R ecor d T i t l e U nderC ol or ado l aw , “a pl ai nt i ff i n a qui ett i t l e ac t i on . . . bear s the bur den of es t abl i s hi ng t i t l e i n t he pr opertys uper i ort o thatof the defendant. . . [and] t he p lain tiff m u st re lyo n th e stre n g th o f h is o w n tit le r a th e r th a n o n th e w e a k n e ss in orl ack of

t i t l e i n [the] defe ndant [] . ” Huts on v. A gr i c. D i t ch & R es er voi rC o. , 7 2 3 P .2 d 7 3 6 , 7 3 8 (C o lo . 1 9 8 6 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). P lain tiff ’s th e o ryis th a t th e 1 9 4 9 tre a su re r’s d e e d iss u e d to P itk in C o u n ty is v o id b e c a u se th e 1 9 1 2 tax sa le w a s u n tim e ly . H o w e v e r, h e lac k s s tan d in g to chal l enge a nydefi ci enci es beca us e nei therhe norhi s pr edec es s or s i n i nt er es thad anyi nt er es ti n t he Snow fl ake i n 1949 w hen the tr eas ur er ’ s deed w as i s s ued t o t he C o u n ty. S e e Tu rk ey C re e k, L L Cv . R o sia n ia , 953 P. 2d 1306, 1314 ( C ol o. A pp. 1998) ( hol di ng t hata part yl acks s t andi ng t o chal l enge the val i di tyof a de ed i s s ued bya countyt r eas ur eri n t he abs ence of ac tual i nj uryt o a l egal l ypr ot ect ed in te re s t) . P lain tiff n e x t ar g u e s th a t th e c o rre c tio n d e e d is v o id b e c a u se P itk in C o u n ty h ad n o au tho ri tyto req u est th e d ee d . W e a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th is a rg u m e n t lac k s m e rit u n d e r C o lo ra d o law . U n d e r n e a rlyPl ai nt i ff a r gues al t ernat i vel yt hatt he pr ohi bi t i on does notappl yunt i l t he 4 U ni t ed St at es obt ai ns good t i t l e t o the pr operty . T hi s i s contr aryt o ourpr i or cas es i nt erpr et i ng t he Q ui etT i t l e A ctand the r equi r ementt hatt he U ni t ed St at es need onl ycl ai m an i nt er es ti n t he pr opertyt o tr i ggert he A ct ’ s l i m i t at i on pr ovi s i on. Knapp v. Uni t ed Stat es , 6 3 6 F .2 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 0 ); St ubbs v. Uni t ed Stat es , 6 2 0 F .2 d 7 7 5 , 7 8 1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). -7- i dent i cal fac tual ci r cumst ance s , the C ol or ado Supr eme C our thel d thatw her e a tre a su re r’s d e e d c o n tain s a d e fe c t, th e tre a su re r h a s n o t d isc h a rg e d h is d u tyto c o n v e ya n d is n o t o n ly au th o ri z e d , b u t r e q u ir e d to is s u e a c o rr e c tio n d e e d . Wh ite C ap Mi ni ng C o. v. R es ur r ect i on Mi ni ng C o. , 1 7 4 P . 2 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 5 (C o lo. 19 4 6 ). H ere, t he u nd i sputed m at eri al fact s est abli shed thatthe U nit ed S t at es, w hi ch ca n t r ace i t s chai n of t i t l e bac k t o the l ocat i on cert i fi cat e r ecor ded i n 1881, h a s s u p e rio r re c o rd tit le to th e S n o w flak e o v e r p lain tiff. H is c h a in o f tit le is tra c e d b a c k to “ w ild d e e d s” re c o rd e d in th e m id 1 9 7 0 ’s a n d c o n v e y e d to h im in 1 9 7 8 a n d 1 9 8 0 . A dver s e Pos s es s i on A l t hough t he Q ui etT i t l e A ctperm i t s l aw s ui t s agai ns tthe fe der al governm entt o adj udi cat e di s put ed t i t l e t o r eal pr opertyi n w hi ch the U ni t ed St at es c laim s a n in ter e st, it co n tain s th e p ro h ib iti o n th a t “[ n ]o th in g in th is s e c tio n sh a ll be co nst rued t o p erm i tsui t s agai nstthe U nit ed S t at es based u po n ad verse pos s es s i on. ” 28 U . S. C . § 2409a( n) . Pl ai nt i ff a r gues thatthe pr ohi bi t i on does not appl yi f he orhi s pr edec es s or s i n i nt er es tacqui r ed t i t l e t o the Snow fl ake by adver s e pos s es s i on bef or e t he U ni t ed St at es fi r s t cl ai m ed an i nt er es t i n the 4-8-

pr oper t yi n 1994. T he di s t r i ctcourtdi s agr eed, and hel d thatthe cl earand unambi guous l anguage of the s t atut e barr ed hi s cl ai m s foradver s e pos s es s i on, re g a rd le s s o f

w h e n th e c la im m a yh a v e a c c ru e d . A s s um i ng forar gum entt hata pl ai nt i ff maybas e a qui ett i t l e cl ai m on a cl ai m of adve r s e pos s es s i on t hathas r i pened i nt o t i t l e pr i ort o the U ni t ed St at es c laim in g a n in ter e st in th e p ro p e rty , the re a re n o fa c ts to su p p o rt su c h a c laim in th is c a se . A d m itt e d ly , the d istric t co u rt d id n o t re a c h th is c o n c lu sio n in its d e c is io n b e c a u s e it fo u n d th a t p la in tiff ’s a d v e rs e p o s s e s s io n c la im s w e re b a rr e d . N onethel es s , w e may“affi r m a gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton gr ounds otherthan t hos e r el i ed on byt he di s t r i ctcourtw hen the r ecor d cont ai ns an ade quat e and i ndepende ntbas i s fort hatr es ul t . ” Ter r a Ventur e, Inc. v. JD N R ealEs tat eOve r l a n dPa rk, L. P. , 443 F. 3d 1240, 1243 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on m arks and c ita tio n o m itte d ). C ol o. R ev. St at . § 38- 41- 101( 1) pr ovi des foradver s e pos s es s i on w her e a p lain tiff a n d /o r h is p re d e c e ss o rs in in ter e st h a v e b e e n in p o ss e ss io n o f p ro p e rty form or e than ei ght een y ear s . T he pos s es s i on m us tbe: ( 1) actual ; ( 2) adver s e; (3 ) h o s tile ; ( 4 ) u n d e r c la im o f ri g h t; ( 5 ) e x c lu s iv e ; a n d (6 ) u n in te rr u p te d . See gen eral l y Sa l azar v. Terry , 9 1 1 P .2 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 0 8 9 , n . 4 (C o lo . 1 9 9 6 ). Pl ai nt i ff c l ai m s t hathi s adver s e pos s es s i on of the Snow fl ake be gan i n 1974 w h e n h e s ta k e d th e c o rn e rs o f th e p ro p e rt ya n d c u t a s m a ll tr a il to a fla t s p o t. A s s um i ng t he trut h of thes e al l egat i ons , w e di s agr ee thatthi s act i vi tycons t i tut es-9-

a c tu a l p o s s e s s io n u n d e r C o lo ra d o la w . See gener al l y Sm i th v. Hayden , 772 P. 2d 47 , 52 (C olo. 19 89 ) ( ho l ding t hat actual possess i on requi res som e “vis i ble m eans, w hi ch gi ves not i ce of excl us i on fr om the pr opertyt o the true ow nerort o the p u b lic a n d o f

th e [ a d v e rse c laim a n t’s] d o m in io n o v e r it . . . .”); C o n c o rdv . Hu ff , 355 P. 2d 73, 76 ( C ol o. 1960) ( hol di ng thatpl aci ng of m arker s on pr opertydoes n o t c o n s titu te a c tu a l p o s s e s s io n ). B egi nni ng i n 1977, pl ai nt i ff c l ai m s t o have bui l tan ei ght - by - ei ghtw ood pl at form , m ade a corr al fr om dead a s pen tr ees i n the mi d- 1980s , and s t or ed a fr i end’ s ol d caron t he pr opert ys i nce the ea r l y1990s . H e cons i der ed the open s pace s i gns pos t ed byPi t ki n C ounty“w ar t s , ” and r emoved t hem. A pl t . O peni ng B r . at42. A s s um i ng forar gum entthatthes e ac t i vi t i es coul d be cons i der ed ac tual pos s es s i on, w hi ch w e doubt , i tdoes notm at t erbeca us e theycoul d nothave r i pened i nt o t i t l e unt i l 1995, w hi ch i s l at erthan A ugus t1994, w hen the U ni t ed St at es fi r s tcl ai m ed an i nt er es ti n the Snow fl ake. T o avoi d t he cons equenc es of C ol o. R ev. St at . § 38- 41- 101( 2) , w hi ch pr ovi des t hata part ycannotadver s el ypos s es s agai ns ta county , pl ai nt i ff a r gues t hatPi t ki n C ount yneverow ned the Snow fl ake unt i l 2002, w hen the corr ect i on deed w as i s s ued. W e do notneed t o deci de thi s i s s ue bec aus e pl ai nt i ff c oul d not h a v e a d v e rse lyp o ss e ss e d a g a in st anyone unt i l 1995, w hi ch i s one y earl at erthan w h e n th e U n ite d S ta te s fir s t c la im e d its in te re s t.-10-

L ikew ise, p lai n ti ff ’s claim o f ti tl e to th e S n o w flak e p u rsua n t t o C o lorad o ’s s even- y earadver s e pos s es s i on s t atut e al s o fai l s . C ol o. R ev. St at . § 38- 41- 108 pr ovi des t hata per s on “i n actual pos s es s i on of l ands . . . undercl ai m and col orof tit le, m a d e in g o o d fa ith . . . [a n d ] w h o fo r se v e n su c c e ss iv e y e a rs . . . pa y s a ll t axes l egal l yas s es s ed on s uch l ands . . . [i s ] . . . the l egal ow ner. . . . ” O ur cons i der at i on of thi s cl ai m begi ns and ends w i th the admi t t ed fa ctthatpl ai nt i ff

“ d id n o t p a ya n yta x e s ” o n th e S n o w fla k e . A p lt. O p e n in g B r. a t 4 7 . C oncl us i on B ase d o n the fo reg o ing u n d ispu ted m aterial fa cts, the d istri ct co u rt corr ect l yfound thatt he U ni t ed St at es w as ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm enton p lain tiff ’s c laim s fo r re c o rd tit le a n d a d v e rse p o ss e ss io n . T h e c o u rt a lso c o rre c tly ent er ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the U ni t ed St at es on i t s count er cl ai m for re c o rd title to th e S n o w fla k e . T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is A F F IR M E D .

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

W ade Brorby C i r cui tJ udge