IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
2 GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, 3
Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE No. CV 0863-81 4
5 v. DECISION AND ORDER 6 162.40 square meters of land more or less 7 situated in the municipality of Agana and unknown owners, et al., 8 Defendants. 9
II INTRODUCTION 12 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on remand from the Guam 13 Supreme Court to determine just compensation. Assistant Attorney General David J. Highsmith
14 represents the Government of Guam and Attorney Seth Forman represents Defendants Artemio
15 M. Ilagan and Carmelita Ilagan, the previous owners of the property at issue. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that Defendants are due just compensation in the amount of 16 $45,000 plus simple interest as applied to the amount not yet paid into the Court. 17 BACKGROUND 18 This litigation concerns the condemnation of a parcel of property, Lot 237-3-2-1 m 19 Agana, formerly owned by Defendants. In short, on November 27, 1981, the Government filed a 20 Declaration of Taking. The Government thereafter sold the parcel to Engracia Ungacta and 21 Felix F. Ungacta. On January 25, 2010, subsequent to a bench trial, this Court issued Findings 22 of Fact and Conclusions of Law in which it determined that the taking of Lot 237-3-2-1 was 23 not part of the Agana Plan and, therefore, was not condemned pursuant to a valid public
24 purpose. The Ungactas timely appealed and, on October 18, 2011, the Guam Supreme Court
25 held "that the taking of Lot 237-3-2-1 was part ofthe Agana Plan and was done pursuant to a valid public purpose [and] that the taking did not violate the Ilagans' equal protections rights 26 and did not constitute excess condemnation." Gov't of Guam v. 162.40 Square Meters of Land 27 More or Less, Situated in Municipality of Agana, 2011 Guam 17, ~~ 1, 37. Unresolved in this 28 Decision and Order CV0863-81, Guam v. 162.40 square meters of land
matter is the narrow issue of just compensation: "[i]n order for a government's exercise of eminent domain to pass constitutional muster, the taking must not only be for a public use; just 2 compensation must be paid as well." Id., ~~ 1, 36-37. 3 On December 21, 1981, the Government deposited $9,744 into the Court Registry as just 4 compensation. The parties have extensively briefed the issue of whether this constitutes just 5 compensation. The Government contends that Defendants are entitled to $9,744 plus statutory 6 interest of six percent. The Government relies on an appraisal performed in 1981 for this 7 amount. Defendants argue that they are entitled to $45,000 plus compound interest at the rate 8 used "for United States government obligations with a maturity date approximating the time
9 period between the taking and payment[.]" Defendants further argue that the Government presented no testimony at trial regarding its valuation and, indeed, that the Government 10 "unequivocally agreed" to $45,000 as just compensation. 11 DISCUSSION 12 "The Fifth Amendment guarantees just compensation when there is a governmental 13 taking of private property for a public purpose." Gutierrez v. Guam Power Auth., 2013 Guam 1, 14 ~ 47 (quoting Cepeda v. Gov't of Guam, 2005 Guam 11, ~ 20) (internal quotations omitted) . • 15 Just compensation is "the full and perfect equivalent in money of the property taken." Gutierrez, 16 2013 Guam 1, ~ 47 (quoting United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 373 (1943)) (internal 17 quotations omitted). This generally means that an owner is entitled to the fair market value of 18 the property at the time of the taking. Gutierrez, 2013 Guam 1, ~ 48; United States v. 4.85 Acres
19 of Land, More or Less, Situated in Lincoln Cnty., Mont., 546 F.3d 613, 617-18 (9th Cir. 2008)
20 ("fair market value [is] what a willing buyer would pay in cash to a willing seller"). Importantly, "[a] stipulation as to what is just compensation in a condemnation proceeding will 21 not be disturbed absent unusual circumstances[.]" Los Angeles Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. 22 v. United States, 289 F.2d 222,233 (9th Cir. 1961) (citing United States v. Town of Clarksville, 23 Va., 224 F.2d 712, 713 (4th Cir. 1955)). 24 It is well-settled that statements by counsel may constitute judicial admissions binding 25 on the client. Sinlao v. Sinlao, 2005 Guam 24, ~ 18 (quoting B.M. Co. v. Avery, 2002 Guam 19, 26 ~ 15) (internal quotations omitted). A judicial admission may occur at any stage of the litigation 27 and such a statement "waives or dispenses with the necessity of producing evidence by the 28 opponent and bars the party himself from disputing it." Sinlao, 2005 Guam 24, ~ 16 (citations
Page 2 ofS Decision and Order CV0863-81, Guam v. 162.40 square meters ofland
and quotations omitted). To constitute a judicial admission, the statements at issue: 1) must be deliberate, clear, and unambiguous; 2) must be deliberate waivers of the right to present 2 evidence; and 3) must not be counsel's conception of the legal theory of the case. Sinlao, 2005 3 Guam 24, ~ 17 (citations and quotations omitted). Whether the statement is a judicial admission 4 "depends upon the circumstances of each case" and, in particular, the intent of the attorney 5 making the statement must be considered in conjunction with statement itself. Sinlao, 2005 6 Guam 24, ~~ 16-17 (citations and quotations omitted). 7 The Assistant Attorney General for the Government referenced Defendants' appraisal of 8 $45,000 three times during the trial. During the Government's opening statement, counsel
9 stated:
10 We will go with the numbers in the [Defendants'] own appraisal. They're saying the land taken was worth $45,000 in 1981, and we 11 will accept that number and offer 28 years of interest at six percent a year, and we believe that comes to $120,600.00. And that is the 12 just compensation. 13 Then, after Defendants' appraiser was sworn as a witness, counsel asserted "that the 14 Government has agreed to the $45,000 figure, so [the witness] may not be hearing a lot of the 15 questions he expected[.]" Finally, in his summation, counsel reiterated that "we have agreed to 16 take [Defendants'] numbers as put forth by [their appraiser, which] would be a loss of $45,000 17 as of 1981." The Government acknowledges these statements, but contends that they should not 18 be binding because Defendants did not rely on the purported stipulation and because the
19 Government's out-of-court appraisal was contemporaneous with the taking and therefore is the
20 "most credible" evidence. At trial, the Government declined to present evidence regarding just compensation and 21 "accept[ed]" and "agreed" to Defendants' valuation of $45,000 in deliberate, clear, and 22 unambiguous terms--on three distinct occasions. On these facts, counsel's statements may be 23 "reasonably construed" as an admission, and the requirements for a judicial admission plainly 24 are met. Sinlao, 2005 Guam 24, ~ 17. The Government simply offers no basis for the Court to 25 ignore these explicit statements and adopt a lower valuation. The Court therefore concludes that 26 this case presents a straightforward judicial admission, i.e., Defendants are entitled to just 27 compensation in the amount of$45,000. See United States v. Bentson, 947 F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th 28 Cir. 1991).
Page 3 of 5 Decision and Order CV0863-81, Guam v. 162.40 square meters of land
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
2 GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, 3
Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE No. CV 0863-81 4
5 v. DECISION AND ORDER 6 162.40 square meters of land more or less 7 situated in the municipality of Agana and unknown owners, et al., 8 Defendants. 9
II INTRODUCTION 12 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on remand from the Guam 13 Supreme Court to determine just compensation. Assistant Attorney General David J. Highsmith
14 represents the Government of Guam and Attorney Seth Forman represents Defendants Artemio
15 M. Ilagan and Carmelita Ilagan, the previous owners of the property at issue. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that Defendants are due just compensation in the amount of 16 $45,000 plus simple interest as applied to the amount not yet paid into the Court. 17 BACKGROUND 18 This litigation concerns the condemnation of a parcel of property, Lot 237-3-2-1 m 19 Agana, formerly owned by Defendants. In short, on November 27, 1981, the Government filed a 20 Declaration of Taking. The Government thereafter sold the parcel to Engracia Ungacta and 21 Felix F. Ungacta. On January 25, 2010, subsequent to a bench trial, this Court issued Findings 22 of Fact and Conclusions of Law in which it determined that the taking of Lot 237-3-2-1 was 23 not part of the Agana Plan and, therefore, was not condemned pursuant to a valid public
24 purpose. The Ungactas timely appealed and, on October 18, 2011, the Guam Supreme Court
25 held "that the taking of Lot 237-3-2-1 was part ofthe Agana Plan and was done pursuant to a valid public purpose [and] that the taking did not violate the Ilagans' equal protections rights 26 and did not constitute excess condemnation." Gov't of Guam v. 162.40 Square Meters of Land 27 More or Less, Situated in Municipality of Agana, 2011 Guam 17, ~~ 1, 37. Unresolved in this 28 Decision and Order CV0863-81, Guam v. 162.40 square meters of land
matter is the narrow issue of just compensation: "[i]n order for a government's exercise of eminent domain to pass constitutional muster, the taking must not only be for a public use; just 2 compensation must be paid as well." Id., ~~ 1, 36-37. 3 On December 21, 1981, the Government deposited $9,744 into the Court Registry as just 4 compensation. The parties have extensively briefed the issue of whether this constitutes just 5 compensation. The Government contends that Defendants are entitled to $9,744 plus statutory 6 interest of six percent. The Government relies on an appraisal performed in 1981 for this 7 amount. Defendants argue that they are entitled to $45,000 plus compound interest at the rate 8 used "for United States government obligations with a maturity date approximating the time
9 period between the taking and payment[.]" Defendants further argue that the Government presented no testimony at trial regarding its valuation and, indeed, that the Government 10 "unequivocally agreed" to $45,000 as just compensation. 11 DISCUSSION 12 "The Fifth Amendment guarantees just compensation when there is a governmental 13 taking of private property for a public purpose." Gutierrez v. Guam Power Auth., 2013 Guam 1, 14 ~ 47 (quoting Cepeda v. Gov't of Guam, 2005 Guam 11, ~ 20) (internal quotations omitted) . • 15 Just compensation is "the full and perfect equivalent in money of the property taken." Gutierrez, 16 2013 Guam 1, ~ 47 (quoting United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 373 (1943)) (internal 17 quotations omitted). This generally means that an owner is entitled to the fair market value of 18 the property at the time of the taking. Gutierrez, 2013 Guam 1, ~ 48; United States v. 4.85 Acres
19 of Land, More or Less, Situated in Lincoln Cnty., Mont., 546 F.3d 613, 617-18 (9th Cir. 2008)
20 ("fair market value [is] what a willing buyer would pay in cash to a willing seller"). Importantly, "[a] stipulation as to what is just compensation in a condemnation proceeding will 21 not be disturbed absent unusual circumstances[.]" Los Angeles Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. 22 v. United States, 289 F.2d 222,233 (9th Cir. 1961) (citing United States v. Town of Clarksville, 23 Va., 224 F.2d 712, 713 (4th Cir. 1955)). 24 It is well-settled that statements by counsel may constitute judicial admissions binding 25 on the client. Sinlao v. Sinlao, 2005 Guam 24, ~ 18 (quoting B.M. Co. v. Avery, 2002 Guam 19, 26 ~ 15) (internal quotations omitted). A judicial admission may occur at any stage of the litigation 27 and such a statement "waives or dispenses with the necessity of producing evidence by the 28 opponent and bars the party himself from disputing it." Sinlao, 2005 Guam 24, ~ 16 (citations
Page 2 ofS Decision and Order CV0863-81, Guam v. 162.40 square meters ofland
and quotations omitted). To constitute a judicial admission, the statements at issue: 1) must be deliberate, clear, and unambiguous; 2) must be deliberate waivers of the right to present 2 evidence; and 3) must not be counsel's conception of the legal theory of the case. Sinlao, 2005 3 Guam 24, ~ 17 (citations and quotations omitted). Whether the statement is a judicial admission 4 "depends upon the circumstances of each case" and, in particular, the intent of the attorney 5 making the statement must be considered in conjunction with statement itself. Sinlao, 2005 6 Guam 24, ~~ 16-17 (citations and quotations omitted). 7 The Assistant Attorney General for the Government referenced Defendants' appraisal of 8 $45,000 three times during the trial. During the Government's opening statement, counsel
9 stated:
10 We will go with the numbers in the [Defendants'] own appraisal. They're saying the land taken was worth $45,000 in 1981, and we 11 will accept that number and offer 28 years of interest at six percent a year, and we believe that comes to $120,600.00. And that is the 12 just compensation. 13 Then, after Defendants' appraiser was sworn as a witness, counsel asserted "that the 14 Government has agreed to the $45,000 figure, so [the witness] may not be hearing a lot of the 15 questions he expected[.]" Finally, in his summation, counsel reiterated that "we have agreed to 16 take [Defendants'] numbers as put forth by [their appraiser, which] would be a loss of $45,000 17 as of 1981." The Government acknowledges these statements, but contends that they should not 18 be binding because Defendants did not rely on the purported stipulation and because the
19 Government's out-of-court appraisal was contemporaneous with the taking and therefore is the
20 "most credible" evidence. At trial, the Government declined to present evidence regarding just compensation and 21 "accept[ed]" and "agreed" to Defendants' valuation of $45,000 in deliberate, clear, and 22 unambiguous terms--on three distinct occasions. On these facts, counsel's statements may be 23 "reasonably construed" as an admission, and the requirements for a judicial admission plainly 24 are met. Sinlao, 2005 Guam 24, ~ 17. The Government simply offers no basis for the Court to 25 ignore these explicit statements and adopt a lower valuation. The Court therefore concludes that 26 this case presents a straightforward judicial admission, i.e., Defendants are entitled to just 27 compensation in the amount of$45,000. See United States v. Bentson, 947 F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th 28 Cir. 1991).
Page 3 of 5 Decision and Order CV0863-81, Guam v. 162.40 square meters of land
With respect to the applicable rate of interest, 21 G. C.A. § 151 07 provides, in pertinent part: 2 [Just] compensation shall be ascertained and awarded in said 3 proceeding and established by judgment therein, and the said judgment shall include, as part of the just compensation awarded, 4 interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the amount 5 finally awarded as the value of the property as of the date of taking, from said date to the date of payment; but interest shall not 6 be allowed on so much thereof as shall have been paid into the court. 7
8 Defendants argue that the award should reflect compound interest at a rate greater than
9 six percent on the entire amount of just compensation, while the Government contends that the statute requires the application of simple six percent interest against only the amount not already 10 paid into the Court Registry, i.e., $45,000 less $9,744. "[S]imple interest is to be awarded 'in the 11 absence of some special circumstance dictating otherwise.'" Duenas v. George & Matilda 12 Kallingal, P.C., 2012 Guam 4, ~ 45 (quoting Guam United Warehouse Corp. v. DeWitt Transp. 13 Servs. of Guam, Inc., 2003 Guam 20, ~ 38). In the context of 18 G.C.A. § 47106, which 14 governs the rate of interest on judgments, the Court found that because the statute is silent as to 15 compound interest, interest must be calculated based on simple interest. De Witt, 2003 Guam 20, 16 ~ 38; see also Guam Top Builders, Inc. v. Tanota Partners, 2012 Guam 12, ~ 82. The Court is
17 mindful that under the Federal Declaration of Taking Act, 40 U.S.C. § 3114, the six percent 18 interest rate is a floor rather than a ceiling. United States v. Blankinship, 543 F.2d 1272, 1276
19 (9th Cir. 1976). However, the local interest rate is a fair and reasonable method of ascertaining interest in condemnation proceedings. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 20 299, 305 (1923); United States v. Rogers, 255 U.S. 163, 169 (1921). Considering that the 21 language of 21 G.C.A. § 15107 is silent regarding compound interest and prescribes a rate of six 22 percent, the Court discerns no statutory authority for imposing compound interest or a higher 23 rate of interest on the just compensation due in this case. 24 The plain language of the statute also contemplates application of the interest against 25 only the amount not already paid into the Court. Thus, a simple interest rate of six percent (6%) 26 per annum shall be applied to $35,256, i.e., $45,000 less $9,744. Accordingly, Defendants are 27 due just compensation in the amount of $45,000 plus interest accrued since the date of taking, 28 which was the date on which the Government filed the declaration of taking. Fulcher v. United
Page 4 of5 Decision and Order CV0863-81, Guam v. 162.40 square meters of land
States, 632 F .2d 278, 280 (4th Cir. 1980) (calculating interest from date of filing of declaration of taking). 2
3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that Defendants are due just 5 compensation in the amount of $45,000 plus interest accrued on $35,256 since the date of 6 taking. 7
8 IT IS SO ORDERED this day ofMarch _j_ 2014. 9
11 HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ 12 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 13
Page 5 of5