Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Administrative Law
Farmer's Failure to Appeal Not Caused
by Agency Misinformation
Marne A. CoitNational AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Harts v. Johanns, 433 F.Supp.2d 1251, (D. Kansas 2006), the United States District Court for the District of Kansas found that although the Farm Service Agency (FSA) sent a letter to plaintiff which incorrectly stated dates, this was harmless error and was not the reason plaintiff did not make a timely appeal to National Appeals Division (NAD).
Plaintiff Larry Harts entered into a Shared Appreciation Agreement (SAA) with the FSA on or about May 15, 1989, under the terms of which plaintiff agreed to give FSA fifty percent of the appreciation of the land value that accrued over ten years in exchange for a reduction of his debt. See id. at 1253-54. In December of 1998 the FSA conducted an appraisal of the land in order to determine the amount of shared appreciation that would be recaptured under the SAA and plaintiff objected to this appraisal when he saw it on January 11, 1999. See id. at 1254. Plaintiff called the FSA on two additional occasions to notify them of his objection and the FSA responded with a letter stating the amount to be recaptured and ways to dispute the appraisal. See id. The letter from FSA was mailed on February 3, 1999, and plaintiff received it on February 5, 1999; however, the letter was incorrectly dated January 12, 1999. See id. In addition, the letter incorrectly stated that plaintiff had 30 days from the date of the letter to appeal the appraisal when he in fact had 30 days from the time he received the letter. See id. at 1256.
Plaintiff subsequently entered into three consecutive one-year agreements with the FSA for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 to suspend repayment of the appreciation and on October 28, 2003, the FSA sent plaintiff a notice of debt acceleration. See id. at 1254. Plaintiff appealed the FSA's action to the NAD, which held that plaintiff was not entitled to appeal the 1998 appraisal and this finding was upheld by the Director. See id. The District Court found "that Plaintiff suffered no prejudice from the incorrect dates. . . .[A]n appeal to the NAD taken in accordance with the dates in the letter would also have been timely under the statute." Id. at 1256-57. The court therefore found the misinformation in the FSA's letter to the plaintiff to be harmless error and not prejudicial to the plaintiff. See id. at 1257.
The case was decided on June 7, 2006; this summary was posted September 27, 2007.