McAfee

United States v. McAfee

Good Law
44 F. App'x 223
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 13, 2002No. 00-17334; D.C. No. CV-96-05720-AWICalifornia2,339 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rodger L. McAfee appeals from summary judgment in the Government’s foreclosure action against his property in El Nido, California. The district court found that the Government’s suit did not violate California’s “one action rule” and that McAfee was not entitled to equitable es-toppel or an offset for negligence. We affirm.

Facts

McAfee and his wife purchased 1480 acres of California farmland in 1976. In the following months, the area suffered severe drought and the strata under McAfee’s land shifted. The six wells on his property failed. To continue farming operations, McAfee determined to recondition the existing wells and drill three additional wells. McAfee initially sought private financing but was denied six times due to “questionable water availability.”

McAfee turned to the United States Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) for an emergency farm loan. Local FmHA officials denied his initial request, noting the property’s lack of a proven production history and anticipated low harvest size and high water costs. On administrative appeal, McAfee’s application was approved. McAfee received five loans totaling $2,075,980. The loans were secured by McAfee’s El…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.