Triggering the QTA Limitations Period: Fee-Simple Conveyances and Constructive Notice of Mineral Rights

Introduction

In Graham v. United States, 10th Cir. No. 24-1164 (Apr. 29, 2025), Ricky T. Graham and Connie L. Archuleta (the Grahams), great-grandchildren of an original patentee, sued the United States under the Quiet Title Act (QTA), 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, to quiet title to mineral rights in a parcel located in Adams County, Colorado. The district court dismissed the suit as time-barred by the QTA’s 12-year statute of limitations, holding that the Grahams’ predecessors in interest had constructive notice of the United States’ claim to minerals when the government recorded a 1943 warranty deed. The Grahams appealed. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, establishing that a properly recorded fee-simple deed without any reservation of mineral rights conveys both surface and mineral estates and triggers the QTA limitations period by providing constructive notice.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States. It held:

The QTA’s cause of action accrues—and the 12-year limitations clock begins to run—when a plaintiff or predecessor “knew or should have known” of the United States’ adverse claim.
Constructive notice under state recording statutes satisfies “should have known.” Under Colorado law, a properly recorded deed provides constructive notice to all the world.
The 1943 warranty deed conveyed the Parcel in fee simple “free and clear of … encumbrances of whatever kind or nature,” with no exception for mineral rights.
Under Colorado precedents, a general conveyance of land passes both surface and mineral estates absent an express reservation of minerals.
Thus, the 1943 Deed on its face conveyed mineral rights to the United States, triggering constructive notice in 1943 and barring the Grahams’ 2021 claim under the QTA’s 12-year limit.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273 (1983): The Supreme Court held that the QTA is the exclusive mechanism for challenging the United States’ title to real property.
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2010): This court emphasized strict construction of the QTA’s limitations period in the government’s favor and that subsequent intra-governmental statements cannot vitiate prior constructive notice.
George v. United States, 672 F.3d 942 (10th Cir. 2012): Clarified that the QTA clock begins on notice of “some assertion … by the government” of an adverse right, even if the claim lacks merit.
Amoco Prod. Co. v. United States, 619 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir. 1980): Confirmed constructive notice under state recording statutes satisfies the QTA’s “should have known” standard.
O’Brien v. Village Land Co., 794 P.2d 246 (Colo. 1990): Under Colorado law, a general land conveyance without mineral reservation passes both surface and minerals.
Great N. Props., LLLP v. Extraction Oil & Gas, 547 P.3d 1110 (Colo. 2024): Reaffirmed that, absent express reservation, ownership of the surface includes the mineral estate.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in several steps:

QTA’s Statute of Limitations & Accrual: The QTA requires that an action be brought within 12 years of accrual, which occurs when a claimant “knew or should have known” of the United States’ claim. This standard includes constructive notice.
Constructive Notice via Recording: Colorado’s recording statute (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-35-109) deems a properly recorded deed to give notice of all interests reflected therein. The Grahams concede that the 1943 deed was duly recorded.
Scope of the 1943 Deed: The warranty deed granted the United States a “good … fee simple” estate “free and clear of all … encumbrances of whatever kind or nature.” Under Colorado precedent, a reservation of mineral rights constitutes an encumbrance—and none was listed.
Presumption in Conveyances: General land grants pass both surface and minerals unless the grantor expressly reserves the minerals. No severance or reservation appears in the recorded chain of title prior to 1943.
Irrelevance of Government Internal Memoranda: Subsequent Corps documents suggesting a reservation were internal, not public, and cannot defeat constructive notice.
Conclusion: The 1943 deed provided constructive notice that the United States claimed the mineral rights, so the Grahams’ 2021 suit was untimely.

Impact

Graham v. United States clarifies and strengthens two key principles in QTA litigation:

Recorded fee-simple deeds that do not carve out mineral interests will be held to convey both surface and minerals, triggering constructive notice and the QTA limitations clock, regardless of private or internal government reservations.
Claimants must diligently monitor public records: mineral-estate disputes must be raised within 12 years of recording of an adverse deed, even if the deed’s scope is later contested.

Lower courts will rely on Graham to reject late-filed quiet-title actions to mineral estates whenever an adverse deed has been on record for over 12 years.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Quiet Title Act (QTA): A federal law providing the exclusive way to challenge the United States’ title to land and setting a 12-year deadline from accrual of the claim.
Constructive Notice: Legal notice imputed by the public recording of a document, binding “all the world,” even if an individual never actually reads the record.
Fee-Simple Estate: An ownership interest that includes all rights to property—both surface and subsurface—unless explicitly limited.
Mineral Reservation/Severance: A carve-out of the mineral estate from the surface estate; if not recorded in the chain of title, it cannot be asserted against later purchasers.

Conclusion

Graham v. United States establishes that a properly recorded fee-simple deed conveying land “free and clear of … encumbrances” will be interpreted to include mineral rights, thereby providing constructive notice and triggering the QTA’s 12-year limitations period. Claimants must act within 12 years of such recording, regardless of internal government documents or later disputes over title. This decision underscores the importance of thorough title searches and timely quiet-title actions in mineral rights litigation.