United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 2 (1998)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Cite as: 524 U. S. 38 (1998)

Opinion of the Court

full disclosure to the District Court regarding the land grant obviously does not approach this demanding standard. Pp. 42-47.

(b) Equitable tolling is not available in a QTA suit. Such tolling is not permissible where it is inconsistent with the relevant statute's text. The QTA's express 12-year statute of limitations runs from the date the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest "knew or should have known" of the United States' claim. 28 U. S. C. § 2409(g). Thus, the Act has already effectively allowed for equitable tolling. See Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89, 96. Given this fact and the QTA's unusually generous limitations period, extension of the statutory period would be unwarranted. Pp. 47-49.

114 F. 3d 484, reversed and remanded.

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Souter, J., joined, post, p. 49.

Paul R. Q. Wolfson argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Waxman, Deputy Solicitor General Schiffer, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Martin W. Matzen, William B. Lazarus, John D. Leshy, and Margaret P. Fondry.

Ernest G. Taylor, Jr., argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Robert M. Arentson, Jr., and Nancie G. Marzulla.

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1979, the United States brought a quiet title action (the Adams litigation) in the Southern District of Mississippi against respondents and nearly 200 other defendants. On the eve of trial, the Government and respondents entered into a settlement whereby title to the disputed land was quieted in favor of the United States in return for a payment of $208,175.87. Judgment was entered based on this settlement agreement. In 1994, some 12 years after that judgment, respondents sued in the District Court to set aside the settlement agreement and obtain a damages award for the disputed land. Their claims for relief were based on the

39

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007