B-123316, JUN. 21, 1955

B-123316: Jun 21, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

JR.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 15. THEY HAVE BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED. RYE TO THE GOVERNMENT WERE DESCRIBED IN PART AS THE CENTER LINE OF BIG MARROWBONE CREEK. YOU SUGGEST THAT THE CREEK IS SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN LINE OF THE JACKSON PROPERTY AND. YOU SEEM TO BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE TAX ASSESSOR'S RECORDS WERE CONSIDERED AS PROOF OF THE LOCATION OF THE LINE. THE RYE DEED TO THE GOVERNMENT DESCRIBED THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED AS THE CENTER LINE OF BIG MARROWBONE CREEK AND IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED FROM MRS. JACKSON IS THE CENTER LINE OF THE SAME CREEK. THE DESCRIPTION CONTAINED IN THE JACKSON DEED INDICATES THAT SUCH IS THE CASE.

B-123316, JUN. 21, 1955

TO MR. SAM A. REEKS, JR.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 15, 1955, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION OF APRIL 8, 1955, SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR $500 AS THE ALLEGED VALUE OF TWO SMALL PARCELS OF LAND, CONTAINING LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN CHEATHAM COUNTY, TENNESSEE.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU SET FORTH AT LENGTH YOUR CONTENTIONS IN THE MATTER. THEY HAVE BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED. HOWEVER, THEY PRESENT NO BASIS FOR ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM.

IN PARTICULAR, AND APPARENTLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT IN OUR DECISION OF APRIL 8 THAT THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE IN THE DEED FROM GLADYS H. JACKSON TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY LINE IN THE DEED FROM CARL E. RYE TO THE GOVERNMENT WERE DESCRIBED IN PART AS THE CENTER LINE OF BIG MARROWBONE CREEK, YOU SUGGEST THAT THE CREEK IS SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN LINE OF THE JACKSON PROPERTY AND, THEREFORE, THAT THE JACKSON DEED COULD NOT CONVEY TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE CREEK- - ALTHOUGH YOU ADMIT THAT THE JACKSON DEED TO THE GOVERNMENT CALLS FOR THE CREEK AS A SOUTHERN LINE OF THE PROPERTY. YOU SEEM TO BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE TAX ASSESSOR'S RECORDS WERE CONSIDERED AS PROOF OF THE LOCATION OF THE LINE. YOU ALSO RENEW YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE VERY SMALL TRIANGULAR PARCEL REFERRED TO IN PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE DID NOT PASS TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE RYE DEED BY REASON OF THE PROVISION IN THAT DEED INCLUDING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ALL GORES WITHIN THE CONVEYANCE.

AS STATED IN THE PRIOR DECISION, THE RYE DEED TO THE GOVERNMENT DESCRIBED THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED AS THE CENTER LINE OF BIG MARROWBONE CREEK AND IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED FROM MRS. JACKSON IS THE CENTER LINE OF THE SAME CREEK. ALSO, THE DESCRIPTION CONTAINED IN THE JACKSON DEED INDICATES THAT SUCH IS THE CASE. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT, AS SUGGESTED BY YOU, THE CREEK IS SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN LINE OF THE JACKSON PROPERTY. THIS OFFICE HAS NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE LINE OTHER THAN IS SHOWN BY THE DEEDS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN DISREGARDING SUCH INFORMATION. ALSO, IN VIEW OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS DISCLOSED IN THE RECORD, THIS OFFICE WOULD NOT FEEL JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING A VIEW CONTRARY TO THAT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE THAT, FOR REASONS STATED IN THE DECISION OF APRIL 8, THE TITLE TO THE VERY SMALL TRIANGULAR PORTION PASSED TO THE GOVERNMENT.

ALSO, AS STATED IN THE PRIOR DECISION, EVEN IF IT WERE ESTABLISHED THAT THE TWO SMALL PARCELS ARE YOUR PROPERTY, PAYMENT FOR THEM WOULD NOT BE AUTHORIZED IN THE ABSENCE OF THEIR ACQUISITION BY THE GOVERNMENT BY DEED OR CONDEMNATION.

YOU ALSO QUESTION THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT THAT THE VALUE OF THE TWO SMALL PARCELS INVOLVED IN YOUR CLAIM IS NOT IN EXCESS OF $25. IN THIS CONNECTION, YOU STATE THAT THE PERSONS FURNISHING THAT INFORMATION PAID MR. RYE $4,000 FOR 5.96 ACRES ADJOINING YOUR LAND AND YOU SEEM TO SUGGEST THAT THE GOVERNMENT PAID MR. RYE $500 AN ACRE AND OVER FOR THE LAND IT ACQUIRED FROM HIM. THIS OFFICE HAS NO INFORMATION OF THE PURCHASE OF ANY PROPERTY FROM MR. RYE BY THIRD PERSONS. HOWEVER, THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR APPARENT BELIEF THAT THE GOVERNMENT PAID MR. RYE $500 OR MORE AN ACRE FOR THE LAND ACQUIRED FROM HIM. THE DEED FROM HIM TO THE GOVERNMENT RECITES A CONSIDERATION OF $13,500 FOR 68.28 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WHICH, IF ALL PARTS OF THE LAND WERE UNIFORM IN VALUE, WOULD BE A PRICE OF LESS THAN $200 AN ACRE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE TWO SMALL PARCELS CLAIMED BY YOU ARE SUBJECT TO FREQUENT FLOODING AND ARE FLOODED FOR LONG PERIODS DURING THE WINTER AND SPRING SEASONS; THAT THEY ARE INACCESSIBLE FROM LANDS LYING SOUTH OF THE CREEK EXCEPT IN DRY SEASON; THAT WHEN THEY WERE APPRAISED THEY WERE COVERED BY A DENSE GROWTH OF LOW LAND VEGETATION; AND IN THE LAND ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM MR. RYE THEY WERE IN THAT PART CLASSIFIED AS CREEK AND SLOUGH BANKS, WHICH CLASSIFICATION WAS VALUED GENERALLY IN THE LOCALITY OF THE TRACT AT APPROXIMATELY $50 AN ACRE. THUS, IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE TWO SMALL PARCELS HERE INVOLVED ARE OF VERY LITTLE VALUE.

ACCORDINGLY, THE DECISION SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM MUST BE AND IS AFFIRMED.