HomeCase briefs › Property

Keydata Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Claims · 1974 · Property
PropertyAssignment of Claims Actgovernment leasesactual possessionEnglish ruleAmerican ruleholdover tenantfederal common law

Facts

Keydata and NASA leased space in the same Cambridge building, and in 1968 Keydata, Wyman Street Trust, and the Government executed coordinated lease amendments under which Keydata would surrender a 2,093-square-foot computer room and the Government would lease it from Wyman on a date selected by the parties, later fixed as January 1, 1969. The amendments also provided that the Government would pay Wyman $39,000 for air-conditioning equipment Keydata had installed, and Wyman would pay the same amount to Keydata; Keydata retained the right to remove the equipment if it restored the premises. Keydata had not vacated by January 1, 1969, and the Government sent a letter canceling the proposed acquisition because the space was not available for occupancy on that date. After Wyman refused to pursue the $39,000, a Massachusetts court ordered Wyman to assign its claim against the Government to Keydata, and Keydata brought this action as assignee.

Issue

Whether Keydata, as assignee of Wyman, could sue despite the Assignment of Claims Act and despite a lease clause limiting Wyman's liability to Keydata, and whether the Government could lawfully cancel the lease when the space was unavailable on January 1, 1969. A further issue was whether factual disputes about waiver or estoppel barred summary judgment on Keydata's second claim.

Rule

A court-ordered assignment transferring a government claim from the nominal owner to the beneficial owner does not violate the Assignment of Claims Act when recognition of the transfer does not frustrate the statute's anti-fraud and anti-multiple-litigation purposes. For federal government leases, federal law may adopt a uniform rule rather than state landlord-tenant law, and the applicable rule is the 'English' rule: unless the lease validly provides otherwise, the landlord breaches its obligation if a third person is improperly in possession when the tenant is entitled to possession and the landlord does not act promptly to remove that person and does not actually remove the person within a reasonable time; the tenant may terminate the lease. A contractual provision making payment contingent on government recovery does not eliminate sufficient legal injury to sue where the intermediary remains obligated to pursue the claim against the Government.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Redwood Systems leased warehouse space in Portland, Oregon, from Harbor Lane Realty, while a federal bureau signed a related lease amendment with Harbor Lane to take over part of that space and pay $52,000 for specialized ventilation equipment Redwood had installed. Harbor Lane refused to pursue the payment after the bureau declined to pay, so Redwood sued Harbor Lane in Oregon state court, and after an adversary proceeding the court ordered Harbor Lane to assign its claim against the United States to Redwood.

If Redwood sues the United States as assignee, what is the strongest argument that the assignment is valid despite the Assignment of Claims Act?

Explanation. The majority recognized a judicial-transfer exception when the transfer occurs by operation of law, especially through a court-ordered assignment in an adversary proceeding, and does not frustrate the Act’s purposes of preventing fraud and avoiding multiple litigation or double liability. The key point is not fair value or state power to override federal law, but the absence of the statutory dangers and the transfer to the real party in interest. (Derived from Keydata Corp. v. United States (1974).)