Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Finance & Credit
Breach of Contract Claim Against Farm Service Agency
Dismissed as Untimely
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Ansell v. United States, No. 2:05-cv-505, 2007 WL 2593777 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 4, 2007), the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held that a plaintiff's breach of contract claim against the Farm Service Agency was untimely as it came eleven years after the accrual of the cause of action, and dismissed her complaint.
Background
The Ansells obtained operating loans from the Farm Service Agency (FSA) in 1984. Id. at *1. They claimed that an FSA loan officer lied to them and told them there were no operating loans available in 1986 and that he refinanced their loans several times in the years after that, improperly compounding their debt. Id. The Ansells further claimed that the loan officer misapplied payments, took excessively long to approve loans, and improperly denied a loan, forcing them to borrow money at 18-22% interest rather than the 5% rate available through the FSA in order to plant their crops, all of which ultimately forced them to enter into the Debt for Nature program, pursuant to which they were able to stay on their farm property but were not allowed to use it for farm purposes for 50 years. Id. The Ansells brought suit against the FSA seeking monetary damages and asking that the contract for the Debt for Nature program be accelerated to expire that year so they could farm their land. Id. at *2. The court interpreted the claim as a tort claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and dismissed it on the ground that a tort claim was untimely. Id. Mrs. Ansell sent a letter to the court explaining that she had followed every available avenue in the FSA chain of command and had several setbacks, but her complaint kept getting passed around until it fell into a "black hole." Id. The letter also included affidavits and exhibits of evidence supporting her explanation. Id. The Ansells subsequently filed an amended complaint for breach of contract, asserting that the statute of limitations did not expire because the complaint was continuously dragging on, records were withheld, discovery was blocked, a "statute of limitations waiver" was obtained, the government lost their claim, and it took two years for an official to determine that it was not a tort. Id. at *4.
Arguments
Mrs. Ansell argued that she had stated a valid claim for breach of contract and that the statute of limitations had not expired because she had sought constant resolution from the FSA for years. Id.
The government argued that the six-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2401 had expired. Id. at *5.
Analysis and Holdings
The court noted that Ansell's original complaint had been filed eleven years after the accrual of the cause of action, and five years after the statute of limitations had expired. Id. Although they appreciated Mrs. Ansell's desire to avoid litigation, the court pointed out that FSA officials explicitly told her that she had a right to file a lawsuit on multiple occasions. Id. The court found no basis to toll the statute of limitations, and also that there had been no applicable waiver of the limitations period. Id. The court concluded by stating that it empathized with Mrs. Ansell and the frustration she had endured trying to save her family farm for the past decade, but it was bound by the rules created by Congress, and dismissed her claim as untimely. Id. at *6.
The case was decided on September 4, 2007.