We’re not going to go into much detail about the Court of Federal Claims’ ruling in Katzin v. United States, No. 12-384L (July 15, 2016): (1) it’s long (44 single-spaced pages), (2) it’s a post-trial ruling and not from an appellate court, and (3) we’re busy today.

But we still recommend you read it, eventually, because it looks like a fascinating case. Here’s the CFC’s ruling, to start:

This post-trial opinion addresses claims by plaintiffs Dr. Richard Lewis Katzin (“Dr. Katzin”), Mary Beth Katzin Simon (“Ms. Katzin”), and Rose Marie Kjeldsen Winters (“Ms. Winters”) that the United States (the “government”) interfered with their ownership rights to a parcel of land (“Parcel 4”) which overlooks the Atlantic Ocean on Culebra Island, Puerto Rico, and that the interference effected a taking in contravention of the Fifth Amendment.

. . . .

This case raises factual questions of property ownership that turn “in large part on events and handwritten records spanning the 19th and 20th centuries,” beginning when Culebra was a possession of the Kingdom of Spain.

. . . .

For the reasons stated, the court finds that the plaintiffs have suffered a permanent physical taking of their property interests for which just compensation is due. The court awards the plaintiffs $610,962.97, measured by the size of the property taken (10.31 cuerdas or 10.01 acres) multiplied by a per-cuerda property value of $59,259.26. The court also awards interest on that amount at the rate of return reflected by the Moody’s Long-Term Aaa Corporate Bond Index, compounded quarterly, from June 22, 2006 to the date the judgment is actually paid.

The part we found most interesting starts on page 39 or so. The CFC determined that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, by claiming that it, and not the owners, owned the property, had taken the property physically. It had not occupied the property, so it was a “non-possessory physical taking,” but by “claim[ing] ownership to part of plaintiff’s property, and it communicat[ing] that claim to prospective purchasers of plaintiffs’ land,” it “prevented them from exercising their right to sell Parcel 4.” Slip op. at 40. And you know what that means: per se taking. 

History. Spanish title. Cuerdas. Maps. Lots of maps. A good result for the property owner. Check it out. 

Katzin v. United States, No. 12-384L (Fed. Cl. July 15, 2016)