This has been a pretty good week for my St. Louis colleague Thor Hearne.
First, he obtained summary judgment in the Court of Federal Claims for the property owners in a rails-to-trails case, Dana R. Hodges Trust v. United States, No. 09-289 L (Oct. 25, 2011). Next, his Cardinals come back from the edge to take the World Series. And now comes Rogers v. United States, No. 07-273L (Oct. 31, 2011), another good decision for property owners from the CFC.
Rogers involves the appraisal standard applied in a partial takings case. As Thor writes:
The case involves a partial taking of an easement. Under the National Trails Act the federal government converted an abandoned railroad easement into a public recreational trail. Under Florida law the owner of the fee estate had the right to exclusive and unencumbered use and possession of their land. But, the federal law – and the Surface Transportation Board's order – destroyed and effectively eliminated the landowner’s state-law right to their land.Today's decision involved the appropriate appraisal standard to value the property interest that the government had taken. The landowners and the DOJ both agreed on the before and after method. [The parties] also – originally – had agreed that the "before-taken" condition of the property was as an unencumbered fee parcel and the "after-taken" condition was the same parcel now encumbered with an easement for public recreation and "railbanking" allowing the STB possibility to authorize a new railroad across the land in the future.
But, literally at trial the DOJ changed their position. They argued everyone – including the DOJ themselves – had gotten it wrong. The DOJ argued the land needed to be reappraised using a new "before-taken" condition. Under the DOJ’s new "before-taken" condition the land was to be appraised assuming the property was still encumbered by the railroad right-of-way easement. This, the DOJ argued, means the government needed to only pay for the "nominal" or "incremental" cost of putting a public trail across an existing railroad easement.
Judge Williams entirely rejected the DOJ’s argument. Judge Williams called the DOJ’s arguments "wholly inappropriate," "misguided" and a "red herring." By making this argument, the DOJ delayed resolution of this case more than 14 months and caused the taxpayer’s interest liability to increase by more than an additional $1.4 Million.
Read the entire opinion below.
