(caption unavailable)

1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases
on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 93-7393
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
WAYNE AND LONNELL MANN FAMILY TRUST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(CA-L-9l-97)
______________________________________________________
(April 29, 1994)
Before DAVIS, JONES and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
The Wayne and Lonnell Mann Family Trust (the "Trust") appeals
the district court's dismissal of its quiet title action. We
affirm.
In 1990, the Trust purchased a 3,146 acre ranch from George
Vogt and Colonial Coins, Inc., a company wholly owned by Vogt. In
1984, Vogt had granted the United States two easements on portions
of the ranch. The first easement covered a 1,042 acre tract in the

-- 1 of 2 --

2
southern portion of the ranch. The second easement covered six
acres and provided access to the 1,042 acre tract. Neither
easement was filed in the county records at the time the Trust
purchased the ranch.
The Trust, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, brought a
quiet title action against the United States seeking to void the
easements. Alternatively, the Trust argued that the United States
should be equitably estopped from claiming the easements.
Following a bench trial, the district court concluded that the
Trust "must be deemed to have been aware of the two easements at
the time it purchased the property"; therefore, the Trust was not
a bona fide purchaser and did not take title free of the easements,
nor was the government estopped from claiming the easements.
On appeal, the Trust argues that the district court clearly
erred in finding that it was not a bona fide purchaser. The only
significant issue is whether the record supports the district
court's finding that the trust had constructive notice of the
government's easements. The district court entered thorough
findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 6, 1993. Our
review of the record leads us to conclude that those findings are
not clearly erroneous. We also find no legal error in the district
court's conclusions of law. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --