Wilkinson v. United States
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9650, 564 F.3d 927, 2009 WL 1212803 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under North Dakota law, conversion of personal property requires an interference with the owner's possessory rights so severe as to amount to a forced sale, typically involving direct physical control or dominion over the property. Additionally, the Federal Tort Claims Act generally prohibits awards of prejudgment interest against the United States.
Facts:
- Ernest and Mollie Wilkinson owned several descendable possessory interests in allotted Indian land held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
- During the 1970s and 1980s, the Wilkinsons mortgaged their allotments to the Farm Service Administration (FSA) and subsequently defaulted on their debt multiple times.
- After Mollie died in 1991, Ernest suffered a heart attack and stroke in 1993, and a son died in 1994, making the Wilkinsons generally unable to continue farming their land.
- In 1996, the FSA requested the BIA's assistance in collecting the Wilkinsons' outstanding debt.
- In February 1997, the BIA advertised for lease bids for the Wilkinsons' land, despite the Wilkinsons' request for the BIA not to lease the land because they intended to resume farming it.
- The BIA proceeded to lease out 315 of the Wilkinsons’ 750 acres on five-year terms against their will.
- With nearly half of their land leased, the Wilkinsons abandoned their remaining land and their farm equipment, which the BIA did not take possession of.
- In July 1998, the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) ruled that the BIA lacked authority to lease the allotments, but the BIA ignored this ruling and leased the allotments again in 2002 for two-year terms.
Procedural Posture:
- The Wilkinsons sued the United States in district court, claiming trespass, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful death of Ernest.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the United States, holding that the Wilkinsons did not have standing to sue.
- The Wilkinsons appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (Wilkinson v. United States, 440 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2006)), which reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- On remand, after a bench trial, the district court held that the BIA was without authority, trespassed on the land from 1997 to 2006, and converted the farm equipment through its trespass and consequent "paralyzing" of the Wilkinsons’ farming operations.
- The district court also held that the BIA intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the Wilkinsons.
- The district court assessed economic damages for trespass and conversion, adjusted these to "present value" by using a 5% rate of return, and awarded additional non-economic damages for emotional distress equal to the economic damages.
- The United States appealed several of the district court’s adverse holdings, specifically concerning the conversion claim, the award of prejudgment interest, and the determination of non-economic damages based on intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does an indirect interference with the use of personal property, without the government exercising physical control or dominion over the property, constitute conversion under North Dakota law? 2. Is a court's adjustment of damages to 'present value' an impermissible award of prejudgment interest against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act? 3. Did the district court abuse its discretion in calculating non-economic damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress by initially setting an amount equal to economic damages, even after a portion of those economic damages were later reversed?
Opinions:
Majority - Melloy, Circuit Judge
1. No, an indirect interference with the use of personal property, without the BIA exercising physical control or dominion over the property, does not constitute conversion under North Dakota law. Conversion requires an interference so serious that it amounts to a forced sale, meaning the defendant must exercise dominion or control over the chattel inconsistent with or in defiance of the owner’s rights. Here, the BIA never took possession of the farm equipment, asserted any right over it, or caused it any physical harm. The BIA's actions only caused indirect inconvenience by preventing the Wilkinsons from using the equipment on the leased land. Such indirect and incomplete interference, without dispossession or harm to the chattel, falls short of the complete deprivation of possessory rights necessary for conversion, which is primarily an offense against possession. This type of interference is more akin to trespass to chattel, which typically requires proof of actual damage, not present here. 2. No, the district court's adjustment of damages to 'present value' is an impermissible award of prejudgment interest against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The FTCA expressly prohibits such awards. The Wilkinsons did not argue a Fifth Amendment claim for 'just compensation' to justify such interest, and the damages were clearly based on North Dakota tort law, not a constitutional violation. Therefore, the district court erred in awarding prejudgment interest. 3. Yes, the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating non-economic damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court's statement that the non-economic damages were 'an amount equal to the economic damages' was not a mechanical calculation, but rather an independent assessment based on the 'stress, frustration, and anger' the BIA caused. This anguish was amplified by the BIA's 'extreme and outrageous disregard for our government’s conflict resolution system,' its continued defiance of the IBIA, and its abuse of its fiduciary position of power over the family. The court's reversal of the conversion holding does not alter the independent basis for the emotional distress award.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the stringent requirements for proving conversion under North Dakota law, distinguishing it from lesser property torts like trespass to chattels. It underscores that indirect interference with property use, without actual dominion or physical deprivation, is insufficient for conversion, which typically mandates a remedy equivalent to a forced sale. The decision also reinforces the Federal Tort Claims Act's strict prohibition on prejudgment interest against the federal government, highlighting that such awards are only permissible under specific constitutional claims. Furthermore, it demonstrates that non-economic damages, even if numerically matching economic damages, can be upheld if supported by an independent, reasoned assessment of the emotional harm, particularly when aggravated by a position of power or willful defiance of legal processes.
