Background
In 2022, the Army Corps of Engineers alleged that Jackie Lackie cut down sixty-nine trees on government land near Greers Ferry Lake. The Corps sent a letter offering a settlement for the damage and recommending the revocation of Lackie’s shoreline use permit. Lackie signed the settlement agreement and paid the requested sum to resolve the trespass issue. Despite the agreement stating it settled all known disputes, the Corps subsequently revoked Lackie’s permit. The district court affirmed the revocation, ruling that the permit issue was not resolved by the settlement.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied federal common law, looking to Arkansas state law for guidance on interpreting the agreement. Under Arkansas law, the agreement must be construed according to the plain, ordinary meaning of its words. The agreement explicitly stated that the parties wanted to settle the case concerning all matters on the public lands and that it settled all known disputes between the parties. The court found that the dispute over the permit was a known dispute at the time of signing, as the Corps had already recommended revocation. The court rejected the Corps’s argument that extrinsic evidence, such as the transmittal letter, clarified the agreement, finding the language unambiguous. The court concluded that the parties reached a binding agreement to resolve all known disputes, including the permit dispute.
A straightforward reading of the agreement, therefore, manifests an objective intent of the parties to settle the dispute over Lackie’s permit.
Jackie Lackie v. Eric M. Noe, Colonel, No. 24-3239 (8th Cir. July 13, 2026)
What it means going forward
Government agencies must honor the plain language of settlement agreements that resolve all known disputes, even if the agency later attempts to take separate enforcement actions on issues raised during the settlement negotiations.