Opinion ID: 184714
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellant's PAP Claim

Text: 6 Appellant bought the land at issue in this case in 1986. In 1982, however, the Colfax County ASCS erroneously designated 3005.1 acres of this land non-cropland, thus significantly diminishing the land's CAB for the purposes of calculating payments under the PAP. The parties now agree that this 3005.1 acres was cropland, and was therefore potentially eligible for consideration in calculating the land's total CAB. Appellant concedes that when it bought the land, it knew that the CCC's data on Appellant's cropland acreage was much less and inconsistent with the cropland actually on the farm. Brief for Appellant at 5. 7 When appellant bought the land in 1986, and every year thereafter through 1989, it entered into a PAP contract with the CCC. Each time it entered into a new annual contract, the CCC provided notice of the CAB calculated for the land, and informed appellant of its right to appeal this calculation within fifteen days of receipt of the notice. It is undisputed that appellant never formally appealed the CAB figure assigned to its land, even though it knew that the figure was inaccurate. Appellant did complain orally to local ASCS officials about the erroneous CAB. Appellant claims, however, that it was discouraged from filing formal appeals, because the local officials represented that the documents needed to clarify the mistake had been inadvertently destroyed. See Brief for Appellant at 5-8. Appellant eventually filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the relevant documents. The documents had not been destroyed, and they vindicated appellant's assertion that the 3005.1 acres was, indeed, cropland. 8 Appellant argues that it is entitled to retroactive payments for the years 1986 through 1989 to reflect the payments that should have been made had the proper CAB been used during those years. Appellee responds that appellant was aware of its actual cropland acreage when it entered into the contracts with the CCC each year, and that both parties fully performed in accordance with those contracts. Appellee contends that these contracts cannot be performed retroactively, and that the court should not construct implied in law contracts to reflect hypothetical contracts that the parties might have entered into had the proper CAB been used. Brief for Appellee at 24. Furthermore, appellee points out that appellant has not established that the disputed acres were in fact devoted to conservation during 1986 through 1989; since the Colfax County ASCS had designated the land non-cropland, those 3005.1 acres were theoretically freed up ... for other uses. Id. at 21.