Charley Johnson v. United States of America

Phoenix, Arizona real property lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a quite title theory.



In 2006, Charley Johnson, on behalf of his trust, bought

about 21 acres bordering the Tonto National Forest in Gila

County, Arizona. The parcel came with a house, barn,

saddle house, well, corrals, and other ranch-related

improvements that the previous landowner built in the

1950s. Based on the Bill of Sale and a professional title

search, Johnson believed that he owned each improvement,

and that none encroached on federal land.



As it happens, Johnson was mistaken. The northern

boundary of Johnson's property was farther south than he

thought. So when his neighbor commissioned a survey,

Johnson learned for the first time that most of his

improvements were located not on his private property, but

on NFS land.



To resolve the encroachment, Johnson filed an STA

application with the Forest Service. 1 Johnson proposed

purchasing six to eight acres of NFS land to cover the

encroaching improvements. After processing the

application for about a decade, the Service set survey

monuments for a 4-acre sale. This proposed parcel

encompassed all the encroaching improvements, giving

Johnson clear title to each.



Later, the Forest Service reversed course. The Service

offered to resolve the encroachment by selling Johnson a

smaller, 0.59-acre parcel. This new proposal included the

land under the house, barn, and well—but not the corrals.

According to the Forest Service, the corrals were "not in

trespass” because they were "authorized range

improvements” owned by the United States. See 36 C.F.R.

§ 222.9(b)(2). The Service maintained that the federal

government had authorized the corrals' construction on NFS

land to aid in range management. In other words, the Service

did not view the corrals as privately held, encroaching

improvements under the STA. See 16 U.S.C. § 521e(2).

Johnson disputed the Forest Service's decision, arguing

that the corrals were not "authorized range improvements”

and should be considered for sale. He explained that the

previous owners constructed the corrals decades before.

And Johnson regularly paid property taxes on the corrals, as

did the original owners. Though Johnson insisted that the

corrals be included in the sale, he "reluctantly agree[d]” to

buy the 0.59 acres when the Service refused to revisit its

decision.



With Johnson agreeing to the purchase, the Forest

Service found that the sale was "in the public interest.” See

16 U.S.C. § 521d(a). It reached that conclusion after

evaluating seven public interest factors in the STA's

regulations. See 36 C.F.R. § 254.36(c)(1)–(7). The Service

also considered five factors for "determining whether to

convey lands upon which encroachments exist.” See 36

C.F.R. § 254.32(c)(1)–(5). A case report explained that

Johnson obtained the property in good faith, that he lacked

notice that the improvements encroached on NFS land, that

the encroachments were caused by an inaccurate description

on the deed, and that Johnson did not learn of the

encroachments until after he bought the property. The

Service thus deemed the 0.59-acre parcel "eligible for

conveyance.”



An appraiser, Amy Edwards, valued the property at

$27,000. Johnson contested the valuation and again asked

the Forest Service to reconsider its decision excluding the

corrals. His request was denied.

Finally, nearly fifteen years after filing his STA

application, Johnson paid the government $27,000 and

received a deed to the 0.59-acre parcel.



Under the STA, the Secretary of Agriculture may sell,

exchange, or interchange ten acres or less encroached upon

by improvements that a landowner built on National Forest

Service land in good-faith reliance on an erroneous survey

or title search. 16 U.S.C. §§ 521d(a), 521e(2). The

Secretary has discretion to approve STA conveyances,

provided they are “in the public interest.” 36 C.F.R.

§ 254.35(e).