Opinion ID: 502772
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ANCSA Sec. 14(c)

Text: 24 Appellants claim that Eklutna, Inc., and Cook Inlet Region, Inc., (the native corporations) violated Sec. 14(c)(1) of ANCSA, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1613(c)(1), by failing to convey them the disputed land. Section 14(c)(1) provides that the native corporation receiving patents under ANCSA shall first convey to any Native or non-Native occupant, without consideration, title to the surface estate of the tract occupied as of December 18, 1971 ... as a primary place of residence, or as a primary place of business ... Appellants claim to have been occupying the disputed lands as primary places of residence and business as of December 18, 1971. The district court held that, as trespassers, Lee and Donnelly could not be held to have occupied the lands within the meaning of Sec. 14(c)(1). 25 As the district court noted, Sec. 14(c)(1) could not operate as a sort of amnesty provision extending rights to individuals who are merely trespassers, failed homesteaders, or land users without any vested rights prior to December 1, 1971, because there was no indication of congressional intent to override the established principle that individuals could obtain no rights to withdrawn lands. See United States v. Consolidated Mines and Smelting Co., 455 F.2d 432, 444 (9th Cir.1971). Moreover, the congressional intent to provide a just and fair settlement of native land claims is inconsistent with an interpretation of Sec. 14(c)(1) that would reduce the land patented to native corporations in favor of trespassers. 26 However, appellants argue that they are not trespassers, by virtue of their vested equitable title to the land. We need not resolve this merits issue. 9 In Lee, 629 F.Supp. at 730-32, the district court held that ANCSA could not require native corporations to resolve the merits of a homesteader's title dispute with the government. The same reasoning should apply to ANCSA Sec. 14(c)(1). To the extent that an occupant is entitled only to a conveyance of land if he is not in trespass, appellants' Sec. 14(c)(1) claims would require the native corporation to resolve the appellants' title dispute with the government. Put another way, appellants' Sec. 14(c)(1) claims are, again, based on their title claim, which cannot be resolved in any action to which the United States is not a party. Accordingly, the Sec. 14(c)(1) claims are also barred by the QTA statute of limitations. 27