Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 93.0

524US1

Unit: $U73

[09-06-00 17:32:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

48

UNITED STATES v. BEGGERLY

Opinion of the Court

to name [the United States] as a party defendant in civil ac-
tions to adjudicate title disputes involving real property in
which the United States claims an interest.” Block v. North
Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and School Lands, 461 U. S.
273, 275–276 (1983). The QTA includes an express 12-year
statute of limitations, which begins to run from the date
upon which the plaintiff ’s cause of action accrued. An
action under the QTA “shall be deemed to have accrued
on the date the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest knew
or should have known of the claim of the United States.”
§ 2409a(g).

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the Beggerlys
had known about the Government’s claim to the land since
at least 1979, more than 12 years before they ﬁled this action
in 1994.
It concluded that the suit was not barred, however,
because the QTA’s statute of limitations was subject to equi-
table tolling, and that, “in light of the diligence displayed
by the [respondents] in seeking the truth and pursuing their
rights,” equity demanded that the statute be tolled in this
case.
In our view, the Court of Appeals
was wrong in deciding that equitable tolling is available in a
QTA suit.

114 F. 3d, at 489.

Equitable tolling is not permissible where it is inconsistent
with the text of the relevant statute. United States v.
Brockamp, 519 U. S. 347 (1997). Here, the QTA, by provid-
ing that the statute of limitations will not begin to run until
the plaintiff “knew or should have known of the claim of the
United States,” has already effectively allowed for equitable
tolling. See Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498
U. S. 89, 96 (1990) (“We have allowed equitable tolling in situ-
ations where the claimant has actively pursued his judicial
remedies by ﬁling a defective pleading during the statutory
period, or where the complainant has been induced or tricked
by his adversary’s misconduct into allowing the ﬁling dead-
line to pass”). Given this fact, and the unusually generous