57 IBIA 167 - About the Office of Hearings and Appeals

Appellant argued that the partition was not equitable because parts of the Southern
Portion are infested with leafy spurge, lost to an existing road, affected by “another lease
across the road,” 7 and suitable in some parts for cropland and in other parts for grazing.
Appellant also argued that he was not served copies of the appraisals, and that the partition
would affect his ranching operation because of the range improvements he had made to
Allotment 2089. Letter from Appellant to Regional Director, Oct. 5, 2010 (Objection
Letter) (11-106 AR Tab 9 at 114). The record does not reflect any attempt by BIA to
consult with Appellant concerning his objections to the partition proposal.
On March 9, 2011, the Regional Director issued the Partition Decision, approving
the proposed partition of Allotment 2089. Under the Partition Decision, Gullickson would
receive a 100% interest in the Northern Portion of the Allotment (106.66 acres) and the
remaining co-owners, including Appellant, would retain undivided interests in the Southern
Portion (213.34 acres). Partition Decision at 1-2.
The Partition Decision was supported by a signed but undated “Results Summary
and Findings Report” (Results and Findings) in which the Regional Director concurred
with the recommendation of the Regional Realty Officer to approve the partition. Results
and Findings (11-106 AR Tab 5 at 85). The Results and Findings determined that the
proposed partition was reasonable, feasible, equitable, and beneficial to all interested parties.
Id. at 87. It found that the partition would permit Gullickson to “utilize his acreage to its
fullest extent” and would “alleviate the squabbles and bickering” between Gullickson and
Appellant. Id. It also noted that Gullickson had attempted to have the land partitioned
“many times,” and had invested substantial time, energy, and money in effecting a partition.
Id. at 87-88. It found that the Southern Portion was appraised at $45 more per acre than
the Northern Portion ($410/acre compared to $365/acre), and that Gullickson had
acknowledged and accepted that difference. Id. at 88; see also Statement of Understanding,
Nov. 30, 2010 (11-106 AR Tab 5 at 90).
The Results and Findings also recited Appellant’s objections to the partition, but did
not address or respond to them. Results and Findings at 88. Finally, it noted that
Allotment 2089 had been the subject of four appeals to the Board, and stated that each had
involved Appellant and Gullickson. 8 Id. at 89. It did not otherwise make any mention of
7 Nothing in Appellant’s Objection Letter, the record, or the parties’ briefs explains this
reference to “another lease.”
8 This finding is factually inaccurate. Gullickson has brought four appeals to the Board,
none of which involve Appellant and only one of which concerned Allotment 2089. The
first appeal related to the denial of a loan to Gullickson. Gullickson v. Acting Aberdeen Area
Director, 21 IBIA 170 (1992). The second appeal objected to Robert White Twin’s sale of
(continued…)
57 IBIA 171