Prairie Land Holdings, L. L.C. v. F.A.A.

919 F.3d 1060
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 25, 2019
Docket18-2234
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 919 F.3d 1060 (Prairie Land Holdings, L. L.C. v. F.A.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Prairie Land Holdings, L. L.C. v. F.A.A., 919 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinions

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Prairie Land Holdings, L.L.C. ("Prairie Land") petitions for review of an adverse order by the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") regarding property Prairie Land leases to the Administration. Having jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C.§ 46110, we affirm.

I. Background

In 1997, Respondent Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") entered into a lease agreement with an Arkansas company, Southern Steel and Wire Co. ("Southern"), for a "pole site" of 0.009 acre in Fort Smith, Arkansas (the "property"). The lease permitted the FAA to construct and maintain on the property a "Low Level Windshear Alert System," which is a series of weather stations used to monitor wind speed and direction near the airport. The lease lasted ten years, whereupon the FAA and Southern renewed it for an additional ten. The renewed lease is the subject of the current dispute, and the relevant portions are as follows:

1. PREMISES:
The Lessor hereby leases to the Government [the property].
....
2. TERM:
To have and to hold, for the term commencing on October 1, 2007, and continuing through September 30, 2017, inclusive, PROVIDED, that adequate appropriations are available from year to year for the payment of rentals.
....
8. RESTORATION:
The Government shall surrender possession of the premises upon the date of expiration or termination of this lease. ...
....
11. HOLDOVER:
If after the expiration of the lease, the Government shall retain possession of the premises, the lease shall continue in force and effect on a month-to-month basis. Rent shall be paid in accordance with the terms of the lease, in arrears on a prorated basis, at the rate paid during the lease term. This period shall continue until the Government shall have signed a new lease with the Lessor, acquired the property in fee or vacated the leased premises.

In 2015, Southern sold the property and surrounding land to Prairie Land. Southern also assigned its lease with the FAA to Prairie Land. That same year, the Fort Smith City Planning Commission rezoned Prairie Land's newly acquired land for commercial development.

At the beginning of 2017, Prairie Land and the FAA began discussing the renewal *1062of the lease. By August of that year, however, Prairie Land made it clear to the FAA that it no longer wanted to lease the property. Prairie Land wanted to develop the property into a commercial center, so it sent the FAA a "notice of termination," advising the FAA to vacate the premises by the expiration of the lease-September 30, 2017.

The FAA did not vacate, and in October 2017, Prairie Land initiated a contract dispute with the ODRA, an adjudicatory office of the FAA tasked with resolving such disputes. Prairie Land moved for summary judgment, claiming that under Arkansas law the FAA did not have a unilateral right to remain as a holdover tenant. The ODRA disagreed, and in April 2018, it issued an order denying Prairie Land's motion. The ODRA concluded that: (1) federal law, not Arkansas law, governed interpretation of the lease agreement; and (2) the plain language of the holdover provisions permitted the FAA to "holdover on the property until either a new lease is agreed upon or it acquires the property in fee." Prairie Land timely filed the instant petition for judicial review.

II. Discussion

The sole issue on appeal is whether the ODRA erred in concluding that the FAA's continued occupancy of the property, without Prairie Land's consent and after the expiration and termination of the lease, is permitted by the lease agreement. We review the ODRA's nonfactual determinations under the Administrative Procedure Act, specifically 5 U.S.C. § 706. Friends of Richards-Gebaur Airport v. FAA, 251 F.3d 1178, 1184-85 (8th Cir. 2001). Under that statute, we may "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions" if they are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ; see also Friends of Richards-Gebaur Airport, 251 F.3d at 1185.

"Federal common law governs the interpretation and construction of a contract between the United States and another party." United States v. Basin Elec. Power Coop., 248 F.3d 781, 796 (8th Cir. 2001) ; see also Boyle v. United Tech. Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 504, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988) ("[O]bligations to and rights of the United States under its contracts are governed exclusively by federal law."). We look to state law for guidance in defining the contours of the federal common law, though, unless "a 'significant conflict' exists between an identifiable 'federal policy or interest and the [operation] of state law[,]' ... or the application of state law would 'frustrate specific objectives' of federal legislation." Boyle, 487 U.S. at 507, 108 S.Ct. 2510 (first alteration in original) (citations omitted). In Arkansas, "[t]he first rule of interpretation of a contract is to give to the language employed the meaning that the parties intended." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Coughlin, 369 Ark. 365, 255 S.W.3d 424, 429 (2007) (citation omitted). A reviewing court "must consider the sense and meaning of the words used by the parties as they are taken and understood in their plain and ordinary meaning."

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Johansson v. Nelnet, Inc.
D. Nebraska, 2021
Stile v. Dubois
D. New Hampshire, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
919 F.3d 1060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prairie-land-holdings-l-lc-v-faa-ca8-2019.