Federal Circuit: Owner Should Have Brought Takings Claim In 1959

When an opinion starts off like this, you just want to read the rest, even if the substance of the decision is about statutes of limitations:

This case arises from Mr. Abbas’s complaint against the United States (“U.S.” or “the Government”) in the Court of Federal Claims for an alleged taking of his property rights in certain pre-World War II German bonds. Mr. Abbas alleges that a series of post-World War II treaties between the U.S. and Germany pertaining to the handling of these bonds effected a regulatory taking without compensation of his right to enforce the bonds against Germany in U.S. courts, in violation of the United States Constitutional requirement that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const. amend. V.

Abbas v, United States, No.16-1342, slip op. at 2 (Dec. 6, 2016). Read the opinion for the fascinating story behind how WWII itself and post-war laws prevented payment on the bonds, how the bonds ended up on the hands of the plaintiff, and how he sued the United States in 2015 in the Court of Federal Claims, "claiming that the 1953 Treaty caused a taking by the U.S. of Mr. Abbas's property rights" by wiping out his claim against Germany for payment. Slip op. at 6.  

Any fact pattern that starts after World War I and is based on a 1953 treaty should set off the statute of limitations alarm bells, and sure enough, the CFC found the claims untimely. The takings claim accrued when the U.S. entered the allegedly confiscatory treaty. 

The Federal Circuit agreed, holding that the six year statute of limitations expired long ago. The property interest the plaintiff alleged was taken was his right to sue Germany for payment of the bonds, a right thwarted when the U.S.entered the 1953 treaty. So he had until 1959. The court rejected his argument that the claim didn't accrue until 2010, "when Germany finished paying settling holders of validated bonds." Slip op. at 9. Until then, we suppose, the argument was that Germany might have paid bondholders like the plaintiff. But that argument "erroneously conflates the takings claims against the [U.S.] and default claims against Germans. Slip op. at 9. 

End of story for the plaintiff, but what a story the backstory must be. 

Abbas v. United States, No. 16-1342 Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2016) 

Related articles

Fed Cir: "Economically Beneficial Use" Means More Than Someone Might Buy The Property

Protip: File Your CFC Complaint First, And Then File Your District Court Action - Even If It Makes No Sense

Amici Brief: On Unsettled Questions Of State Law In Takings Cases, Federal Courts Shouldn't Guess

Tohono's "Jurisdictional Ambush" And The Tucker Act Shuffle In The Federal Circuit