(case involves sale of farmland subject to multiple CRP contracts; no written document provided that buyer would assume existing CRP contracts, but seller informed FSA of sale and that buyer intended to assume CRP contracts and that FSA should direct all subsequent correspondence to buyer; FSA informed seller that he was required to refund all annual rental payments plus interest, all cost-share payments plus interest and liquidated damages because buyer did not become successor to CRP contracts within 60 days as required by regulation; NAD determined that (1) verbal agreement between buyer and seller for buyer's succession to CRP contracts should have been reduced to writing; (2) buyer did not obtain FSA approval to succeed to or modify the contracts; (3) while FSA allowed buyer to cancel CRP contract, cancellation did not constitute succeeding to remaining CRP contracts; (4) allowing buyer to cancel one CRP contract did not harm seller because buyer required liquidated damages; Director Review upheld and seller appealed; court granted summary judgment for government on seller's equitable estoppel, unclean hands, declaratory judgment, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional breach of contract, negligence and plaintiff's claim for attorney fees).