Opinion ID: 451593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Government's Later Actions

Text: 29 Since the government made no assurances to Clark that he would own all the property in tract 100E-1 after the exchange, we necessarily reject McDermott's argument that the government's later actions can be viewed as substantiating its assurances. Further, we agree with the District Court that the government's failure to remove Clark's fence and its failure to develop tract 200-1 for nine years do not constitute affirmative misconduct. As the District Court found, the government intended to leave tract 200-1 as a buffer between the nearby park and adjacent property. The issuance of permits to Fagan and the Greenes allowing them to repair the riverbank on tract 200-1 was at most a negligent act caused by the Corps' failure to check title to 200-1 before issuing the permits. In any event, that failure to check title could not have harmed McDermott, who had sold portions of the disputed land to Fagan and the Greenes several years before they obtained the permits. 30 In short, McDermott has failed to show affirmative misconduct on the part of the government. Accordingly, we do not reach the question of whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable against the federal government. 31 The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.