Opinion ID: 3189206
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The QTA

Text: This case is animated by the intersection of two federal statutes: the Quiet Title Act and the Submerged Lands Act. We begin with the QTA. “The QTA . . . waives the United States’[] sovereign immunity and ‘permits plaintiffs to name it as a party defendant in civil actions to adjudicate title disputes involving real property in which the United States claims an interest.’” McMaster v. United States, 177 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Block v. N. Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 276 (1983) (internal alteration omitted)); see 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a) (“The United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest . . . .”). As such, it “provide[s] the exclusive means by which adverse claimants [can] challenge the United States’ title to real property.” Block, 461 U.S. at 286. The QTA has a twelve-year statute of limitations, which is triggered when the plaintiff’s QTA action first accrues. See 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g) (“Any civil action under this section . . . shall be barred unless it is commenced within twelve 5 Case: 15-11771 Date Filed: 03/28/2016 Page: 6 of 25 years of the date upon which it accrued.”). A QTA action accrues when “the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest knew or should have known of the claim of the United States” to the real property at issue. Id. The Supreme Court has twice concluded that, because the statute of limitations circumscribes the scope of the QTA’s waiver of sovereign immunity, compliance with the limitations period is jurisdictional. See United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834, 841 (1986) (“When the United States consents to be sued, the terms of its waiver of sovereign immunity define the extent of the court’s jurisdiction.”); Block, 461 U.S. at 292 (“If North Dakota’s suit is barred by [the QTA statute of limitations], the courts below had no jurisdiction to inquire into the merits.”); see also Bank One Texas v. United States, 157 F.3d 397, 403 (5th Cir. 1998). 3 For the same reason, the limitations period “must be strictly observed,” and courts “must be careful not to interpret it in a manner that would ‘extend the 3 Our conclusion is consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent holding in United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015). In that case, the Supreme Court established a rebuttable presumption that equitable tolling applies to statutes of limitation for suits against the federal government unless (1) Congress has “clearly stated” that a time limit is jurisdictional or (2) stare decisis requires adherence to the Supreme Court’s past determination that a time limit is jurisdictional. See id. at 1630-32, 1635-36 (relying on Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 95-96 (1990) (establishing the presumption) and John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 137-39 (2008) (applying stare decisis to decide whether a time limit was jurisdictional)). Pursuant to Kwai’s emphasis on stare decisis principles, we adhere to the Supreme Court’s previous treatment of the QTA statute of limitations as jurisdictional. See Mottaz, 476 U.S. at 841, 843; Block, 461 U.S. at 287-88, 292. 6 Case: 15-11771 Date Filed: 03/28/2016 Page: 7 of 25 waiver beyond that which Congress intended.’” Block, 461 U.S. at 287 (quoting United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117-18 (1979)). Accordingly, courts have consistently held that the QTA’s statute of limitations standard “does not require the government to provide explicit notice of its claim” in order for the statute of limitations to begin running. Spirit Lake Tribe v. N. Dakota, 262 F.3d 732, 738 (8th Cir. 2001). “The government’s claim need not be ‘clear and unambiguous,’” and “[k]nowledge of the claim’s full contours is not required.” Id. (quoting first N.D. ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands v. Block, 789 F.2d 1308, 1313 (8th Cir. 1986), then Knapp v. United States, 636 F.2d 279, 283 (10th Cir. 1980)). Rather, “[a]ll that is necessary is a reasonable awareness that the Government claims some interest adverse to the plaintiff’s.” Id. (quoting Knapp, 636 F.2d at 283); see also Kingman Reef Atoll Invs., LLC v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008) (same); Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes v. United States, 558 F.3d 592, 595 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (same). Moreover, the merits of the government’s claim are irrelevant: “Even invalid government claims trigger the QTA limitations period.” Spirit Lake, 262 F.3d at 738; see also Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 769 (4th Cir. 1991) (“The crucial issue in the statute of limitations inquiry is whether the plaintiff had notice of the federal claim, not whether the claim itself is valid.”). 7 Case: 15-11771 Date Filed: 03/28/2016 Page: 8 of 25 In this case, it is undisputed that the state of Florida, F.E.B.’s predecessor in interest, had actual knowledge of the United States’ claim to the island in 1951. The United States’ 1951 letter objecting to Florida’s intention to sell the island plainly set forth the Navy’s claim of ownership over the island: The letter traced the United States’ ownership of the spoil area to an 1819 treaty with Spain, and informed Florida “that the Department of the Navy considers . . . the spoil area in question as being the property of the United States.” (Doc. 1-32.) Such an explicit and unambiguous assertion of a property interest more than meets the QTA’s accrual requirements. See Knapp, 636 F.2d at 283; Spirit Lake, 262 F.3d at 738. Beyond that, Florida’s actual knowledge of the federal government’s claim is evidenced by the Florida attorney general’s letter to the state agency attempting to sell the island. The letter acknowledged the Navy’s claim, but nonetheless urged the agency to “complete this sale and explain the Navy’s claim to [the buyer] and allow him to accept the . . . deed at his own risk. . . . In this manner we can get the question of title settled one way or [the] other in case the Navy decides to litigate with him.” (Doc. 1-33.) The fact that Florida duly issued the original private buyer only a quitclaim deed, with no warranties of title, further establishes Florida’s awareness of the federal government’s claimed interest. Because F.E.B.’s predecessor in interest had actual knowledge of the United States’ claim 8 Case: 15-11771 Date Filed: 03/28/2016 Page: 9 of 25 to the real property at issue in 1951, F.E.B.’s QTA claim expired in 1963—well before initiation of this suit.4 See 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g). Therefore, the district court was correct to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.