Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Administrative Law

Farmer's CRP and PFC Claims Dismissed

Chuck Munson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

In Cotrell v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 559 (Fed Cl. 2006), the United States Court of Federal Claims granted the government's Motion to Dismiss and held that the plaintiff's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) claim had accrued in 1991 for the purposes of the six year statute of limitations on suits against the government, and was therefore time barred. Id. at 566. The court also held that the plaintiff's Production Flexibility Contract (PFC) claim was barred by his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at 568.

The government withheld CPR and PFC payments from the plaintiff-operator because of a looming will contest and a dispute regarding the validity of his lease of the property. Id. at 561. The government's position was that, due to the impending will contest, the plaintiff could not show satisfactory evidence of his long term control over the land as required by the CRP. Id. Plaintiff then brought a claim against the government arguing that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) had breached a contract with him by improperly denying his CRP application; however, the government successfully argued that under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2501, the six year statute of limitations on claims against the government had run due to the court's finding that the plaintiff was informed by the USDA Department Administrator that his administrative appeal rights were concluded and that the government's alleged liability had become fixed no later than 1991. Id. at 56-66.

The plaintiff also argued that the USDA wrongfully denied payment under the PFC program; however, the government successfully argued that the plaintiff had failed to appeal a decision against him by his local county committee to the National Appeals Division (NAD), and had therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 7 U.S.C.A. § 6912. Id. at 56-568.

The case was decided on June 13, 2006; this summary was posted July 20, 2007.



 

This material is based on work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under Agreement No. 59-8201-9-115. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The National Agricultural Law Center is a federally funded research institution located at the University of Arkansas School of Law, Fayetteville.

Web site: www.NationalAgLawCenter.org | Phone: (479)575-7646 | Email: NatAgLaw@uark.edu