## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 25 02

__ __ __ __ __ _

Maynard Bern ard ; Fl or in e Ber na rd

, *

*

Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts

, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

. Uni te d S ta te s Dep art m en t o f th e In te rio r;*

Secr et ary of

Depa rtment o f In te rio r; *

Bo ard of I nd ia n Hea rin gs an d Ap pe al s; *

Great Pla in s R eg io na l Di rect or of t he *

Bu reau of I nd ia n Aff

ai rs

, *

*

Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees

, *

*

Grad y Ren vi ll e, *

*

Defen da nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 4, 2 01 2

Fil ed : Ap ril 6, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re MUR PHY an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and ROSS, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ _

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

The Hon or ab l e Jo hn A. Ro ss

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.Maynard Bern ard de ci de d to de ve lo p s om e o f th e In di an tru st lan d h e own ed

on th e Si ss et on W ah pe t o n Res erv at io n in a pr ojec t pl an ne d wit h hi s co us in Grad y

R e n v il le

. Bern ard an d Ren vi ll e co ns ul te d a Bu reau of In di an Affai rs (BIA) r e a l t y

of fic er ab ou t ho w to pr oc eed

. Sh e ad vi se d Bern ard to si gn a gi ft de ed to co nv ey th e

en ti re pr op ert y to hi m se lf an d Ren vi ll e as joi nt te na nt s wit h th e rig ht of su rv iv or sh ip

.

The ag en cy su bs eq ue nt ly de ni ed a req ue st by Bern ard an d hi s wife Fl or in e to se t

as id e th e de ed

. Afte r an un su cces sf ul ad m in is tra ti ve ap pe al th e Bern ard s br ou gh t an

act i o n in fed eral di st ric t co ur t ag ai ns t th e Uni te d St at es Dep art m en t of th e In te rio r

(th e Dep art m en t) se ek in g rev ie w of th e ag en cy de ci si on a n d mo n e y da m ag es fo r

br each of tru st

. The Bern ard s la te r am en de d th ei r co m pl ai nt to el im in at e th e da m ag e

cl ai m an d s ub se qu en tl y

set tl ed wit h Ren vi ll e, who ag reed to de ed ba ck so m e o f th e

la nd

. Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t affi rm ed th e ad m in is tra ti ve de ci si on an d di sm is se d th e 2

Bern ard s' act io n, th ey m ov ed to al te r th e jud gm en t, se ek in g tra ns fer of th ei r da m ag e

cl ai m to th e Co ur t of Fed eral Cl ai m s (CFC ). The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, an d

th e Ber na rd s ap pe al . W e aff irm.

I.

Bern ard own ed ap pr ox im at el y 45 .5 acre s of la nd he ld in tru s t by th e Uni te d

St at es fo r hi s be ne fit on th e Si ss et on W ah pe to n In di an Res erv at io n in So ut h Dak ot a.

Maynard an d Fl or in e Bern ard are bo th m em be rs of th e Si ss et on W ah pe to n Trib e. In

20 04 Bern ard en te red in to an ag reem en t wit h hi s se co nd co us in Ren vi ll e to de ve lo p

th e se ct io n of Bern ard 's la nd th at ab ut te d Pi ck erel Lak e an d to sh are pr of it s fro m th e

sa le of in di vi du al lo ts

. Ren vi ll e was to pr ov id e th e cap it a l f o r t h i s de ve lo pm en t.

The Ho n or ab le Ch arl es B. Kor nm an n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 2

Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

.

-2

-Bern ard ob ta in ed pe rm is si on fro m th e Si ss et on W ah pe to n Trib al Co un ci l to ta ke th e

la ke fro nt acre s o ut of t ru st

. 3

Bern ard an d Ren vi ll e m et wit h real ty of fic er Caro l Jo rd an at th e BIA of fic e in

Si ss et on in Apr il 20 04 . Bern ard st at es th at th e pu rp os e of th e m eet in g was to m ak e

arra ng em en ts to ha ve th e la nd ta ke n ou t of tru st

. Jo rd an st at ed at he r de po si ti on th at

sh e ad vi se d th em to le av e th e la nd in tru st st at us an d wait to ob ta in a fee pa te nt un ti l

de ve lo pm en t was co m

pl et ed in or de r to av oi d ta x co ns eq ue nc es

. Sh e al so su gg es te d

us e of a gi ft dee d so th at Ren vi ll e co ul d "p ro te ct wha te ve r m on et ary in te res t th at he

was go in g to be pu tt in g in to th e pr ojec t." Sh e fu rth er su gg es te d a joi nt te na nc y wit h

th e rig ht of su rv iv or sh ip be cau se th e two m en ha d ve rb al ly ag reed t h a t t h e y wou ld

"t ak e care of each ot he r's fam il ie s." Ren vi ll e fil le d ou t a g i f t d eed ap pl ic at io n fo r

Bern ard be cau se he ap pa ren tl y ha d s om e v is io n p ro bl em s.

The ap pl ic at io n s t a t e d th at Bern ard in te nd ed to gi ft co nv ey 45 .5 acre s to

hi m se lf an d Ren vi ll e i n a jo i n t te na nc y wit h th e rig ht of su rv iv or sh ip

. The reas on

li st ed fo r th e co nv ey an ce was "joi nt bu si ne ss ve nt ur e." The ap pl ic at io n al so in di cat ed

th at Bern ard waiv ed hi s rig ht to an ap pr ai sa l. He si gn ed th e ap pl ic at io n, an d on Apr il

20 Jo rd an br ou gh t a gi ft de ed t o t h e Bern ard s' ho us e, whe re Maynard an d hi s wife

Fl or in e bo th si gn ed it

. The BIA su pe rin te nd en t ap pr ov ed th e de ed in May 20 04

, an d

it was s ub se qu en tl y

reco rd ed

.

Bern ard c o n t e n d s t ha t he ha d no t un de rs to od th at he gi ft de ed ed hi s la nd to

Ren vi ll e. He cl ai m s th at Jo rd an m is rep res en te d th e effe ct of si gn in g th e de ed an d th at

he th ou gh t he was si gn in g a m or tg ag e. Acco rd in g t o B e r n ard

, Jo rd an ne ve r

m en t i o n e d an y th in g ab ou t a gi ft co nv ey an ce. In st ead sh e as su red hi m th at th e

arra ng em en t was te m

po rary an d th at no de ed wou ld ev er be fil ed

. Jo rd an te st ifi ed at

Bern ar d o r i g in al ly req ue st ed pe rm is si on to ta ke ou t 10 acre s; ho wev er a 3

su rv ey la te r rev eal ed th at th e am ou nt of la ke fro nt la nd was ap pr ox im at el y 17 acre s.

-3

-he r de po si ti on th at sh e to ld th e Ber na rd s t ha t t he gi ft c on ve y an ce was go in g to be a

"t em po rary si tu at io n" be cau se Ren vi ll e ha d or al ly ag reed to reco nv ey to Bern ard th e

la nd no t in te nd ed fo r de ve lo pm en t. Jo rd an al so st at ed in an affi da vi t th at sh e

ex pl ai ne d th e na tu re of a joi nt te na nc y an d a rig ht of su rv iv or s h i p t o B e rn ard an d

Ren vi ll e.

Sev eral m on th s aft er th e de ed was si gn ed

, th e de ve lo pm en t pl an fel l ap art

.

Acco rd in g to Bern ard

, hi s rel at io ns hi p wit h Ren vi ll e de te rio rat ed

, th e pr ojec t "fa il ed

di sm al ly," an d Ren vi ll e st op pe d wor ki ng on it wit ho ut rel in qu is hi ng hi s in te res t in th e

la nd . Ren vi ll e cl ai m s t o h av e sp en t ap pr ox im at el y $2 00 ,00 0 d ev el op in g t he lan d.

The Bern ard s al le ge th at th ey di d no t rece iv e a co py of th e gi ft de ed un ti l Ju ne

20 04

, aft er th e de ed ha d al read y rece iv ed fin al ap pr ov al fro m th e BIA su pe rin te nd en t.

The y wro te to th e su pe rin te nd en t al le gi ng th at th e ag en cy ha d br each ed it s fid uc ia ry

du ty by m is rep res en ti ng th e effe ct of si gn in g th e de ed

. The su pe rin te nd en t de ni ed

th ei r req ue st to se t as id e th e de ed

, st at in g th at he di d no t ha ve th e au th or it y to do so

.

The Bern ard s app eal ed to th e reg io na l di rect or

, ad di ng th at th e BIA ha d vi ol at ed it s

own reg ul at io ns in ap pr ov in g th e gi ft de ed

. The reg io na l di rect or affi rm ed th e

de ci si on no t to re s c i n d th e de ed

, co nc lu di ng th at ag en cy pr oc ed ur es ha d be en

fo ll owe d, th at Jo rd an ha d ex pl ai ne d th e na tu re of th e gi ft co nv ey an ce, an d th at Jo rd an

ha d ob se rv ed th at Bern ard was "ca pa bl e of u n d ers ta nd in g ev erythi ng th at was

ex pl ai ne d."

The Bern ard s ap pe al ed to th e In te rio r Bo ard of In di an App eal s (IBI A), whi ch

affi rm ed th e reg io na l d ire ct or 's d eci si on . The Bo ard co nc lu de d t ha t n o v io la ti on of

ag en cy reg ul at io ns ha d o ccu rred whi ch m ig ht ren de r th e d eed vo id . Th e Bo ard di d

no t re ach th e m eri ts of th e Bern ard s' br each of tru st cl ai m s, st at in g th at it ha d no

au th or it y to gra nt th e req ue st ed rel ie f of de cl ari ng th e gi ft dee d nu ll an d vo id ba se d

on an al le ge d br each of tru st

. See Maynard & Fl or in e Bern ard v. Acti ng Great Pl ai ns

Reg 'l Di r., 46 I.B.I.A. 28 (20 07 ).

-4

-In Octo be r 20 08 th e Bern ard s br ou gh t th is act io n ag ai ns t th e Dep a r t ment

se ek in g rev ie w of th e IBIA's de ci si on no t to se t as id e th e de ed

, a s w e l l a s mo n ey

da m ag es fo r br each of "fi du ci ary d u t y a n d tru st res po ns ib il it y ." The co m pl ai nt

a l l e g e d th at th e BIA ha d br each ed it s fid uc ia ry du ty b y fai li ng to ex pl ai n th e effe ct

of si gn in g a g i f

t d e e d, m is rep res en ti ng it as on ly a "t em po rary arra ng em en t," an d

un du ly in flu en ci ng th e Bern ard s to si gn it

. The y as se rte d juri sd ic ti on un de r th e

Adm in is tra ti ve Pro ced ur e Act (APA), 5 U

. S

. C

. §§ 70 1– 70 6, as well as th e Tuc ke r

A ct

, 28 U.S.C. § 14 91 (a)( 1)

. The Tuc ke r Act pr ov id es th at th e CFC ha s e x c l u s i v e

ju r i s d ic ti on ov er no n to rt cl ai m s fo r m on ey da m ag es ag ai ns t th e Uni te d St at es in

ex ces s of $1 0,0 00

. Id .; See W eek s Co ns t., In c. v. Ogl al a Si ou x Hou s. Aut h., 79 7 F.2 d

66 8, 6 75 (8t h C ir. 1 98 6)

.

The Dep art m e n t mov ed to di sm is s th e Bern ard s' co m pl ai nt in Ja nu ary 20 09

,

arg ui ng th at th e cl ai m fo r m on ey da m ag es de pr iv ed th e di st ric t cou rt of j ur is di ct io n

un de r th e APA an d th a t t h e C F C ha d ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on ov er cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e

Uni te d St at es fo r m on ey da m ag es in ex ces s of $1 0,0 00

. The Bern ard s am en de d th ei r

co m pl ai nt in res po ns e, el im in at in g th ei r req ue st fo r m on ey da m ag es an d th e

juri sd ic ti on al refe ren ce to th e Tuc ke r Act an d ad di ng Ren vi ll e as a de fen da nt

. The y

su bs eq ue nt ly cl ari fie d th at th ey were "s eek in g APA rev ie w [o f th e IBIA de ci si on no t

to se t as id e th e de ed ] an d no t m on ey da m ag es " an d ack no w l e d g e d t h at an y m on ey

da m ag es cla im

"wo ul d b e req ui red to be bro ug ht in th e [CF C]."

In Feb ru ary 20 11 th e di st ric t co ur t or de red th e Bern ard s an d Ren vi l l e to

m ed ia t e t h e i r la nd di sp ut e. The y su bs eq ue nt ly reac he d a se tt le m en t in whi ch th e

pa rti es ag reed to sp li t th e pr oc eed s fro m th e sa le of th e 17 acre s ab ut ti ng th e la ke th at

ha d be en in te nd ed fo r de ve lo pm en t, an d Ren vi ll e ag reed to ret ur n th e rem ai ni ng acre s

to th e Bern ard s. The Dep art m en t of th e In te rio r was no t a p a r t y t o t h e s et tl em en t

ag reem en t.

-5

-The di st ric t cou rt affi rm ed th e IBIA deci si on in Mar ch 20 11

, co nc lu di ng th at

it was no t arb it rary, cap ric io us

, an ab us e of di sc ret io n, or ot he rw is e co nt rary to th e

la w. See 5 U.S.C. § 70 6( 2) (A). It al so co nc lu de d th at si nc e th e BIA ha d no t "p as se d

up on an y qu es ti on of br each of tru st res po ns ibi lit ie s, " ad m ini st rat iv e rem ed ie s ha d no t

be en ex ha us te d on th os e cl ai m s an d i t h a d no juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er th em

. The

di st ric t co ur t co m

m en te d th at "[n ]o co m

pe te nt la w y er wou ld ha ve pe rm it te d th e

pa rti es to pr oc eed as th ey di d

, " b u t th at Jo rd an "d id ex act ly wha t th e pl ai nt iff s

req ue st ed an d th ere is no ev id en ce of th e em pl oyee ho ld in g he rs el f ou t as a la wy er or

ev en a real es ta te ag en t." It st at ed th at whi le es ta bl is hi ng a joi nt te na nc y was

"ce rta in ly u nwi se an d d an ge ro us ," it was u nf or tu na te ly not an "u nf

am il ia r si tu at io n

whe re la y pe op le un de rta ke act iv it ie s wit ho ut le ga l ad vi ce

. . . wit ho ut fo res eei ng th e

tro ub le to co m e 'do wn th e ro ad '" an d th at th e pa rti es "ex pe ct ed la wy ers an d a co ur t

to un rav el th ei r cas ua l an d reck le ss do in gs

. " The di st ric t co ur t en te red an or de r

di sm is si ng th e cas e.

The Bern ard s th en fil ed a m ot io n to al te r th e jud gm en t un de r Fed eral Ru le s of

Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 59 (e) an d 60

. The y so ug ht to ha ve th ei r mo n e y d am ag es cl ai m

ag ai ns t th e Uni te d St at es fo r br each of tru st tra ns ferr ed to th e CFC, ci ti ng th e fed eral

tra ns fer st at ut e, 28 U.S.C. § 16 31

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. It co nc lu de d

th at whi le tra ns fer m ig ht be in th e "i nt eres t of jus ti ce," th e Bern ard s ha d no t m et th e

ot he r req ui rem en ts fo r tra ns fer un de r § 16 31 be cau se th ey ha d ab an do ne d th ei r

Tuc ke r Act cl ai m fo r m on ey da m ag es in 20 09

. Thu s "t he re were no cl ai m s pe nd in g

fo r m on ey da m ag es or fo r cl ai m ed b r e ach of tru st " at th e ti m e it ha d di sm is se d th e

act io n. It al so no te d th at th e si x y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns fo r CFC cl ai m s "m ay well

ha ve ex pi red ," an d th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t's in te rp ret at io n of 28 U.S.C. § 15 00 in

Uni te d St at es v. Toh on o O'Odh am Nati on

, 13 1 S. Ct

. 17 23 (2 01 1)

, pr ov id ed fu rth er

su pp or t fo r th e de ni al of th e Bern ard s' m ot io n. Se ct io n 1 50 0 ba rs CFC juri sd ic ti on

whe n th e pl ai nt iff ha s a su it ag ai ns t th e Uni te d St at es "fo r or in res pe ct to " th e sa m e

cl ai m pe nd in g i n a no th er co ur t.

-6

-The Bern ard s ap pe al th e de ni al of th e m ot io n to al te r th e jud gm en t, arg ui ng th at

th ey ha d no t ab an do ne d th ei r br each of tru st cl ai m

, th at ne it he r th e st at ut e of

li m it at io ns no r Toh on o pr ev en t tra ns fer, an d th at tra ns fer wou ld be in th e in te res t of

jus ti ce.

II.

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of th e Bern ard s' Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n to al te r

th e jud gm en t fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Twin Ci ty Co ns tr. Co

. of Farg o v. Turt le 4

Mo u n t a i n Ban d of Ch ip pe wa In di an s, 91 1 F.2 d 13 7, 13 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ). W e wil l

fin d an ab us e of di sc ret io n on ly if th e di st ric t co ur t's jud gm en t "was ba se d on cl earl y

erro ne ou s fact ua l fin di ng s or erro ne ou s le ga l co nc lu si on s." Mar go li es v. McC le ary,

In c., 44 7 F .3d 11 15 , 11 25 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

I n t h e i r m ot io n to al te r th e jud gm en t th e Bern ard s as ke d th e di st ric t co ur t to

tra ns fer th ei r m on ey da m ag es cl ai m to th e CFC, no ti ng th at th e si x ye a r s t a t ut e of

li m it at io ns wou ld pr ev en t th em fro m si m pl y refi li ng th at cl ai m th ere. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2 50 1. Th e tr an sf

er s ta tu te pro vi de s:

W he ne ve r a ci vi l act i o n is fil ed in a co ur t

. . . an d th at co ur t fin ds th at

th ere is a wan t of juri sd ic ti o n

, t h e c o u rt sh al l, if it is in th e in te res t of

jus ti ce, tra ns fer su ch act io n o r ap pe al to an y ot he r su ch co ur t in whi ch

th e act io n or app eal co ul d hav e be en br ou gh t at the ti m e it was fil ed or

no ti ced

, an d th e act io n or app eal sh al l pr oc eed as if it ha d be en fil ed in

or no ti ced fo r th e co ur t to whi ch it is tra ns ferr ed on th e da te up on whi ch

it was act ua ll y fil ed in or no ti c e d f o r th e co ur t fro m whi ch it is

tra ns ferr ed

.

Alt ho ug h th e Bern ard s' m ot io n to al te r th e jud gm en t ci te d bo th Ru le 59 (e) an d 4

Ru le 60

, th ei r at to rn ey st at ed at or al arg um en t t h a t t h e m ot io n was in te nd ed un de r

Ru le 59 (e), n ot Ru le 60

.

-7

-Id

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th e req ui rem en ts fo r tra ns fer un de r § 16 31 were no t

m et an d d en ie d t he m ot io n.

W e co nc lu de th at th e req ui rem en ts for tra ns fer u nd er § 16 31 were n ot m et in

th is cas e. Sev eral y ears be fo re th e di st ric t c o u r t e n t e r e d it s fin al jud gm en t, th e

Bern ard s ab an do ne d th ei r cl ai m fo r m on e y d a mages un de r th e Tuc ke r Act by

ame n di ng th ei r co m

pl ai nt to el im in at e al l refe ren ce to th at cl ai m

. The y cl ari fie d

se ve ral ti m es th at th ere was no lo ng er a cl ai m fo r m on ey da m ag es an d ack no wled ge d

th at th ey un de rs to od th at an y su ch cl ai m ha d to be br ou gh t in th e CFC. Bec au se th ere

was no m on ey

da m ag es cla im

pe nd in g a t t he ti m e th e d is tri ct co ur t en te red it s fin al

jud gm en t in Mar ch 20 11

, th ere was no act io n whi ch th e di st r i c t c ou rt co ul d ha ve

tra ns ferr ed un de r § 16 31

. See In re W ire le ss Tel. Fed

. Co st Rec ov ery Fees Lit ig

., 39 6

F.3 d 92 2, 92 8 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 05 ) ("[ A] n am en de d co m pl ai nt su pe rced es an or ig in al

co m pl ai nt an d ren de rs th e or ig in al co m pl ai nt wit ho ut le ga l effe ct ."); Ro ge rs v. Uni te d

St at es

, 26 Cl

. Ct

. 10 23

, 10 29 (1 99 2) (co ur t m ay no t tra ns fer cl ai m un de r § 16 31 if no t

al le ge d in co m

pl ai nt ). The di st ric t co ur t th us di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g

th e Ber na rd s' m ot io n t o a lt er t he jud gm en t.

The Bern ard s ur ge th e co ur t to lo ok at th e or ig in al co m pl ai nt in st ead of th e

a mend ed co m

pl ai nt to fin d th at th ei r m on ey da m ag es cl ai m st il l ex is te d fo r t h e

pu rp os es of tra ns fer. The y ci te rem ov al cas es whe re a co ur t or de red a pa rty to am en d

a co m pl ai nt or th e de ci si on to am en d was "o th erwi se in vo lu nt ary. " In su ch cas es th e

co ur t th en lo ok s to th e or ig in al c o m pl ai nt to de te rm in e whe th er rem ov al to fed eral

co ur t was pr op er. E.g. In re Atl as Van Li ne s, In c., 20 9 F.3 d 10 64

, 10 67 (8 th Ci r.

20 00 ). The Bern ard s of

fer no au th or it y in di cat in g th at th e in vo lu nt ari ne ss ex cep ti on

t o t h e am en de d co m

pl ai nt ru le ap pl ie s ou ts id e of th e rem ov al co nt ex t, an d w e

co nc lu de th at it is no t ap pl ic ab le he re.

Eve n if th e m on ey da m ag es cl ai m ha d st il l be en pe nd in g at t h e t i me o f

di sm is sa l, tra ns fer in th is cas e wou ld ha ve be en pr oh ib it ed by 28 U.S.C. § 15 00

. Tha t

-8

-st at ut e pr ov id es th at th e CFC "s ha ll no t ha ve juri sd ic ti o n o f a n y cl ai m fo r or in

res pe ct to whi ch th e pl ai nt iff

. . . h as pe nd in g in an y ot he r co ur t an y su it or pr oc es s

ag ai ns t th e Uni te d St at es ." The Fed e r a l C i r cu it ha s cl ari fie d th at § 15 00 pr ev en ts

tra ns fer to th e CFC of a cl ai m fil ed in th e di st ric t co ur t si m ul ta ne ou sl y wit h an ot he r

cl ai m whi ch th e st at ut e co ns id ers to be th e sa m e. Uni te d St at es v. Cn ty. of Co ok

, Ill

.,

17 0 F.3 d 10 84

, 10 91 (Fed

. Ci r. 19 99 ). Thi s is be cau se th e tra ns fer st at ut e di rect s th at

th e tr an sf erre d a ct io n " sh al l p ro ceed as i f it ha d b een fil ed in

. . . t he co ur t to whi ch

it is tra ns ferr ed on th e da te up on whi ch it was act ua ll y fil e d i n

. . . th e co ur t fro m

whi ch it is tra ns ferr ed ." 28 U.S.C. § 1 63 1. The Bern ard s do no t di sp ut e th at th ei r

APA cl ai m an d th ei r Tuc ke r Act cl ai m fo r m on ey da m ag es are "fo r or in res pe ct to "

th e sa m e cl ai m fo r pu rp os es of § 15 00

. See Uni te d St at es v

. To ho no O'Odh am

Nati on

, 13 1 S. Ct

. 17 23

, 17 31 (2 01 1) ("Two su it s are fo r or in res pe ct to th e sa m e

cl ai m

, pr ecl ud in g juri sd ic ti on in th e CFC, if th ey are ba se d on su bs ta nt ia ll y th e sa m e

op erat iv e fact s, reg ard le ss of th e rel ie f so ug ht in each su it ."). Thu s, ev en if th e

B ern ard s ha d no t wit hd rawn th ei r da m ag e cl ai m

, tra ns fer wou ld no t h a v e b e e n

pe rm it te d be cau se th e APA cl ai m wou ld ha ve be en co ns id ered "p en di ng " an d § 15 00

wou ld ha ve ba rred CFC ju ris di ct io n. 1 70 F.3d at 1 09 1.

W e reco gn iz e th at th e fact s of th is cas e are tro ub li ng

. App aren tl y on he r own

in it ia ti ve , t he BIA real ty o ffi cer ad vi se d Bern ard to si gn a gi ft de ed co nv ey in g ha lf

of hi s in te res t in hi s en ti re pr op ert y to Ren vi ll e in a joi nt te na nc y wit h th e ri g h t of

su r v i v o r s h ip

. In ad di ti on sh e to ld Bern ard th at th is wou ld be on ly a "t em po rary"

arra ng em en t ba se d on Ren vi ll e's al le ge d or al as su ran ces

, an d sh e pe rm it te d Bern ard

to waiv e ap pr ai sa l of hi s la nd be fo re th e tra ns fer. Sh e al so al lo wed Ren vi ll e to fil l ou t

th e gi ft de ed ap pl ic at io n, ap pa ren tl y be cau se Bern ard 's ey es ig ht was so ba d he co ul d

no t d o i t h im se lf.

The Bern ard s do no t ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on on th e m eri ts of th ei r

APA cl ai m

, ho wev er, an d th ey were no t le ft co m pl et el y wit ho ut a rem ed y

. Thro ug h

a se tt l em en t wit h Ren vi ll e, th ey rece iv ed ha lf of th e pr oc eed s fro m th e sa le of th e

-9

-pr op ert y o r i gi na ll y in te nd ed fo r th e joi nt ve nt ur e an d Ren vi ll e de ed ed ba ck th e

rem ai ni ng acre s.

III.

W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g th e

m ot io n t o alt er the jud gm en t t o t ran sf er t he m on ey

da m ag es cla im

to th e CFC si nc e

th e B e r n a r d s h ad wit hd rawn th at cl ai m se ve ral y ears be fo re fin al jud gm en t was

en te red . Accor di ng ly, th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-