## 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 CO L I N C HAP M AN, 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. AS HE L A. DE NM AN; GE OR GE M CC U LLO U G H ; M . S. M C C U L L O U G H , an d a n ya n d a ll unknow n per s ons w ho cl ai m any in ter e st in th e su bjec t m a tter o f th is act i on, De fe n d a n t s / Cr o s s c l a i mD 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- 1331 (D . C . N o . 0 0 -M W -23 5 8 -(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 o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s 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 , C ol i n C hapman, 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 t en- acr e pat ent ed m in in g c laim k n o w n a s th e P u z z ler L o d e M in in g C laim (P u z z ler ). It is lo c a ted in th e M a ro o n B e lls-S n o w m a ss W ild e rn e ss A re a o f th e W h ite R iv e r N a tio n a l F o re st, aboutt en mi l es s out h of A s pen, i n Pi t ki n C ounty , C ol or ado.Pi t ki n C ount ycont i nued t o ow n the Puzzl erunt i l 1994 w hen i tw as 2 co n v ey ed to the U n it ed S tat es. F rom 1 9 5 4 thro u g h 1 9 9 4 , n o p rop ertytaxe s w ere a ss e ss e d b e c a u se c o u n ty -o w n e d p ro p e rtyis ta x e x e m p t. C o lo . R e v . S tat. § 3 9 -3 -1 0 5 . A “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 ). -3- T he undi s put ed, m at er i al fac t s conce rni ng the Puzzl erbegan mor e than one hundr ed y ear s ago w i t h a l ocat i on cert i fi cat e r ecor ded i n 1881, and the i s s uance o f a p a ten t in 1 8 9 3 . W h e n th e o w n e rs fa iled to p a yth e p ro p e rtytax e s, th e P itk in C o u n ty T re a s u re r o ffe re d th e P u z z le r a t a ta x s a le o n D e c e m b e r 1 6 , 1 9 0 1 . B e c a u se th e re w e re n o b id d e rs, th e P u z z ler w a s s tru c k o ff to P itk in C o u n ty t hr ough a tr eas ur er ’ s cert i fi cat e of pur chas e. I n M ay1954, t he Pi t ki n C ountyT r eas ur eri s s ued a N ot i ce of Pur chas e 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 P u z z ler . A tre a su re r’s d e e d fo r th e P u z z ler w a s is su e d to th e P itk in C o u n ty B oar d of C ount yC om m i s s i oner s ( B O C C ) , and r ecor ded on J une 16, 1954. 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 P u z z ler . T h e re so lu tio n re c o g n ize d th a t th e c laim s w e re lo c a ted w ith in th e W h ite R i verN at i onal For es tand s t at ed thatt heyw er e “us eful and nec es s aryforpr es ent p u b lic o p e n sp a c e a n d p a rk s a n d re c re a tio n .” A p lt. A p p . at 2 8 8 . A n d in Ju ly 1988, bas ed on numer ous “w i l d deeds ” bei ng fi l ed on county - ow ned mi ni ng 3-4-

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 re c o rd s a ss e rtin g its o w n e rsh 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 P u z z le r. Pl ai nt i ff’ s chai n of t i t l e bega n i n J ul y1979, w hen a “ w i l d deed” w as r ecor ded purpor t i ng t o conveyt he Puzzl erand s ever al otherm i ni ng cl ai m s fr om T h e D e n v e r & C o lo ra d o In v e s tm e n t C o m p a n yto th e A s p e n -W e s te rn C o rp o ra tio n . Shor t l yaft err ecor di ng t he “w i l d deed, ” the A s pen- W es t ern C orpor at i on purpor t ed t o conveyt he Puzzl ert o St efa n, M ar gar etand Ever et tA l bouy( A l bouy s ) , w ho r ecor ded the dee d i n O ct ober1979. O n J ul y14, 1991, the A l bouy s convey ed the P u z z ler b yq u it cla im d e e d to p lain tiff, w h o p a id n o th in g fo r it an d w h o a g re e d to hol d t he Puzzl erfort he A l bouy s . Fi ve day s aft err ece i vi ng t he qui tcl ai m deed fr om t he A l bouy s , pl ai nt i ff f i l ed a qui ett i t l e l aw s ui ti n Pi t ki n C ountyD i s tr i ct C o u rt c o n c e rn in g th e P u z z le r, a n d n a m e d th e B O C C a s a d e fe n d a n t. 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 the Puzzl er , fora 230- acr e par cel ow ned byt he U ni t ed St at es . A s par tof the exc hange, the C ountyconvey ed the Puzzl ert o the 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, 1994. T he Puzzl ert hen bec ame par tof the W hi t e R i verN at i onal For es t . I n D ece m ber1994, pl ai nt i ff a nd t he B O C C fi l ed a s t i pul at ed mot i on t o di s m i s s the s t at e courtqui et t i t l e ac t i on w i t houtpr ej udi ce. Pl ai nt i ff f i l ed hi s fede r al cour tqui 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 c to b e r 2 0 0 2 , the P itk in C o u n tyT re a su re r iss u e d a c o rre c tio n d e e d to c o rre c t th e 1 9 5 4 tre a su re r’s d e e d , w h ich fa iled to re flec t th e d a te th e 1 9 0 1 tax sa le w as comm ence d, and w hi ch al s o fai l ed t o cont ai n a r eci t al expl ai ni ng w hythe t ax s al e w as hel d l at e. Speci fi cal l y , hi s t or i cal r ecor ds w er e uncove r ed that es t abl i s hed the dat e of s al e as D ece m ber16, 1901, and the corr ect ed dee d s t at ed t hatt he s al e comm ence d l at e bec aus e of “ [l ] ack of offi ce he l p and t i m e forthe p re p a ra tio n a n d p u b lic a tio n o f th e n o tic e in th e n e w s p a p e r.” A p lt. A p p . a t 2 2 8 . T o cur e anycl oud on t he t i t l e, t he C ountyexec ut ed anotherqui tcl ai m deed t o t he 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-6-

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 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 e c o rd T itl 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 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 ). Pl ai nt i ff a r gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcour terr ed w hen i tdet erm i ned thatthe 1954 t ax dee d s houl d be r eform ed t o r efl ectthe dat e of the s al e as D ece m ber16, 1901, and thatt he r eas on fort he unt i m el ys al e w as the l ack of s uffi ci ent per s onnel . H i s t heoryi s t hatt he tr eas ur er ’ s deed i s voi d and thathi s chai n of t i t l e, w hi ch bega ns w i t h a “w i l d deed” i n 1979, i s s uper i ort o thatof the U ni t ed St at es . W e di s agr ee. I n near l yi dent i cal fac tual ci r cumst ance s , the C ol or ado Supr eme C our thel d t hatextr i ns i c evi dence m aybe us ed t o r eform t echni cal defe ct s i n a tr eas ur er ’ s deed, and the r eform ed dee d r el at es back t o the or i gi nalPl 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 p ro v is io n . 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- d e e d . B o a rdo

f C o u n ty C o m m ’rs v . Tim ro th , 8 7 P .3 d 1 0 2 , 1 0 8 -0 9 (C o lo . 2 0 0 4 ). T he evi dence s ubm i t t ed byt he U ni t ed St at es i n s uppor tof r eform at i on w as never di s put ed bypl ai nt i ff. A s s uch, t he di s tr i ctcour tpr oper l yent er ed an or der re fo rm in g th e d e e d . H er e, t he undi s put ed mat er i al fac t s es t abl i s h thatthe U ni t ed St at es , w hi ch can tr 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, has su p e rio r re c o rd tit le to th e P u z z ler o v e r p lain tiff, w h o se c h a in o f tit le b e g in s in 1979 w i t h t he r ecor di ng of a “ w i l d deed. ” 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 t , the A l bouy s , acqui r ed t i t l e t o the P u zz ler byad v erse p o sses sion b efo re the U nit ed S t at es fi rs tcl ai m ed an i nter est 4 i n t he pr oper t yi n 1994. T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s agr eed, and hel d thatt he cl earand-8-

unambi guous l anguage of the s t atut e barr ed hi s cl ai m 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 ctcour tw 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 Puzzl erbegan i n 1979, w hen the A l bouy s r ecor ded thei rdeed. Set t i ng as i de the fa ctthatpl ai nt i ff ha s fai l ed t o pr ove adve r s e pos s es s i on underC ol or ado l aw , byhi s ow n admi s s i on t he-9-

a lleg e d a d v e rse p o ss e ss io n c o u ld n o t h a v e rip e n e d in to tit le u n til 1 9 9 7 , w h ich is th re e y e a rs a f

te r t h e U n ite d S ta te s fir s t c la im e d a n in te re s t in th e P u z z le r. F u rth er, t o av o id the co n seq u en ce s o f C o lo. R ev . S tat . § 3 8 -41 -10 1 (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 ar gues t hatPi t ki n C ount yneverow ned the Puzzl erunt i l 2004 w hen the di s tr i ct cour tent er ed i t s or derr eform i ng the tr eas ur er ’ s deed. T o the contr ary , the refo rm ed d ee d w as re tr o ac ti v e to 1 9 5 4 , an d fro m that p o int fo rw ard the P u zz ler w a s o w n e d b yth e C o u n ty, ag a in s t w h o m n o c la im fo r a d v e rs e p o s s e s s io n lie s . Tim ro th , 8 7 P .3 d a t 1 0 8 -0 9 . L ikew ise, p lai n ti ff ’s claim o f ti tl e to th e P u zz ler pu 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- 109 r equi r es , among ot hert hi ngs , t he paym entof al l t axes l egal l yas s es s ed fors even s ucce s s i ve y ear s , undercol orof t i t l e made i n good fai th. O urcons i der at i on of t hi s cl ai m i s r es ol ved byt he fa ctthatther e i s nothi ng i n the r ecor d thatpl ai nt i ff ev er p aid a n ytaxe s o n the P u zz ler. 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 l a i n t i ff ’ s c l a i m s fo rr e c o r d t i t l e a n d a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n . T h e c o u r ta l s o c o rr e c t l y-10-

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 P u z z le r. 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