Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number No. 79-2527. Attorney(S) Thomas R. Burnside, Jr., Augusta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant. William T. Moore, Jr., U.S. Atty., Savannah, Ga., Edmund A. Booth, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Augusta, Ga., Anne S. Almy, James W. Moorman, Dept. of Justice, Appellate Sect., Land Natural Resources Div., Attys., Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee. Judges Thomas Morrow Reavley Acts Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — United States As Party Generally — Particular Proceedings — Real Property Quiet Title Actions Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — District Courts; Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction And Venue — United States As Defendant See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. FRANCES C. PRATER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC [2] (Opinion Feb. 20, 1980, 5 Cir., 1980, 612 F.2d 157) PER CURIAM: We granted rehearing to dispose of the government's concern that our original opinion, Prater v. United States, 612 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1980), expands the scope of the waiver of sovereign immunity for "quiet title" suits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2409a (1976) to actions seeking reformation of a deed. We did not characterize Prater's suit as one in the nature of an action to reform a deed; that label was one affixed by the government. Id. at 159. The opinion clearly indicates that Prater asserted equitable title to the realty, under Georgia trust law, by virtue of Allen's promise of reconveyance. Prater's summary judgment proof (the depositions of Fred Prater and Allen as well as Allen's affidavit) was sufficient to establish the promise to reconvey, and thus raise a claim of equitable title for jurisdictional purposes. See Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 n. 4, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 1010 n. 4, 91 L.Ed. 1209 (1947); C. Wright A. Miller, Federal Practice Procedure § 1350 (1969). Because Prater claimed a right, title or interest in the property, section 2409a served as a waiver of sovereign immunity and the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(f)(1976).