Opinion ID: 2650166
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicable Law and Burdens of Proof

Text: The Spodeks argue that federal common law applies, and although the government did not brief this issue, the authority cited by the government indicates that the government agrees that federal common law is applicable. We will analyze this dispute regarding a government contract under federal common law. See Forman v. United States, 767 F.2d 875, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759, 765 (Fed. Cir. 1987), the Federal Circuit stated: “[W]e conclude that the government should bear the burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether termination for default was justified, regardless of the forum and regardless of whose ‘claim’ is being asserted. Thus, the burden of proof here was on the government on the default issue.” Therefore, it is the government’s burden to demonstrate that 5 Case: 12-11025 Document: 00512496503 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/10/2014 No. 12-11025 the Spodeks defaulted. “Once the government meets its burden, the burden shifts to the contractor to demonstrate that its nonperformance was excusable.” Lassiter v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 265, 268 (2004) (citing DCX, Inc. v. Perry, 79 F.3d 132, 134 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). In addition to the general principles cited above, the lease itself contains a provision that addresses liability if the building becomes untenantable. Specifically, Paragraph 7 of the lease requires the lessors to maintain the premises, “except in case of damage arising from the act or negligence of the Government’s agents or employees.” The parties disagree about which party bears the burden of proof under this provision. It is the Spodeks’ contention that the government must prove not only that the building was untenantable, but also that the government did not cause the damage which led to that untenantable condition. The Spodeks fail to cite any authority in support of their position. After reviewing cases addressing similar contractual language, we find that if the lessee proves the building is untenantable, Paragraph 7 of the lease places the burden on the lessor to demonstrate that the damage arose from “the act or negligence of the Government’s agents or employees.” See Russell & Assocs.-Fresno Ltd. v. United States, 1979 WL 16491, at , -17 & n.14 (Ct. Cl. Mar. 9, 1979); cf., Spodek v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 1, 10-12 (2006).