United States v. 7.46 Acres of Land

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedOctober 28, 2021
Docket3:19-cv-01515
StatusUnknown

This text of United States v. 7.46 Acres of Land (United States v. 7.46 Acres of Land) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. 7.46 Acres of Land, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 19-cv-1515-WQH-AHG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 7.46 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, SITUATE IN IMPERIAL 15 COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; 16 CHARLES W. LIST; IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT; and 17 IMPERIAL COUNTY TAX 18 COLLECTOR, 19 Defendants. 20 HAYES, Judge: 21 The matter before the Court is the determination of just compensation pursuant to 22 Rule 71.1(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 23 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 24 On August 12, 2019, the United States filed a Complaint in Condemnation, 25 condemning 7.46 acres of land in Imperial County, California (“Subject Property”), for the 26 public purpose “to construct, maintain, and repair barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and 27 sensors to help secure the United States/Mexico border within the State of California.” 28 1 (ECF No. 1-3 at 1). The United States identified the holder of title to the Subject Property 2 as Charles W. List based on a Trustee Deed Upon Sale recorded on January 28, 1935. (ECF 3 No. 1-8 at 1). The United States identified the interested parties to the litigation as Charles 4 W. List, the Imperial Irrigation District, and the Imperial County Tax Collector. 5 On August 13, 2019, the United States filed a Declaration of Taking (ECF No. 3) 6 and a Notice of Condemnation (ECF No. 4). On August 16, 2019, the Court issued an Order 7 directing the Clerk of the Court to deposit the estimated just compensation of $11,200, 8 tendered by the United States, into the Registry Bank Account of the United States District 9 Court for the Southern District of California. (ECF No. 7). Thereafter, title of the Subject 10 Property passed to the United States. See 40 U.S.C. § 3114(b). 11 On October 28, 2019, the United States filed a Certification of Service by 12 Publication, certifying that Charles W. List “cannot be personally served because, after a 13 diligent inquiry, the place of residence of the said defendant cannot be ascertained by the 14 plaintiff.” (ECF No. 9 at 1). On November 5, 2019, the United States filed executed 15 Waivers of Service as to the Imperial County Tax Collector and the Imperial Irrigation 16 District. (ECF Nos. 10-11). On November 8, 2019, the Imperial County Tax Collector filed 17 an Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 12). On November 27, 2019, the United States filed 18 Proof of Service by Publication as to Charles W. List, certifying that the United States 19 “caused the Notice of Condemnation for Publication to be published, once a week for three 20 consecutive weeks, on October 29, 2010, November 5, 2019, and November 12, 2019, in 21 the Imperial Valley Press.” (ECF No. 13 at 1). On September 10, 2020, the Imperial County 22 Tax Collector filed a Disclaimer of Interest. (ECF No. 15). 23 On June 2, 2021, the Court set a hearing to determine just compensation for 24 September 23, 2021. (ECF No. 28). On September 22, 2021, the United States filed a 25 Certificate of Service, certifying that “on June 7, 2021, the United States mailed a copy of 26 the Court’s Order of June 2, 2021, to all parties of record for whom an address is known 27 and who have not disclaimed interest in this litigation.” (ECF No. 29 at 1). 28 1 On September 23, 2021, the Court held a hearing to determine just compensation. 2 (ECF No. 30). 3 On October 15, 2021, the Court ordered the United States to supplement the record 4 to detail the “reasonably diligent search of the records” the United States has undertaken 5 to determine the current title holder of the Subject Property pursuant to Rule 71.1(c)(3) of 6 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 31 at 2). On October 25, 2021, the United 7 States filed a Response, asserting that Westcor Land Title Insurance Company (“Westcor”) 8 performed a search of the public records and determined title in the Subject Property to be 9 vested in Charles W. List, subject to a reservation of right of way currently held by the 10 Imperial Irrigation District. (ECF No. 32). The United States asserted that it “attempted to 11 contact [] Charles W. List to give notice of this condemnation,” but “the United States 12 could find no record of a Charles W. List living in or near Imperial County, California, and 13 a search of the records, including LexisNexis, indicated no living Charles W. List in 14 Southern California who could have purchased the property in 1934.” (Id. at 2). The United 15 States attached the Westcor report, which includes a description of the chain of title ending 16 in a transfer to Harry Finerman. (ECF No. 32-1). 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 The United States can condemn property for public use, but it must pay just 19 compensation for the value of what is taken. See U.S. CONST. amend. V. When a whole 20 parcel is taken, just compensation is “the fair market value of the property on the date it is 21 appropriated.” Kirby Forest Indus., Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1984) (citing 22 United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land, 441 U.S. 506, 511-13 (1979)). When a portion of a 23 parcel is condemned, just compensation is the difference between the fair market value of 24 the whole parcel immediately before the taking and the fair market value of the remainder 25 of the parcel after the taking. See United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 376 (1943). Fair 26 market value is the price a reasonable seller would demand, and the price a “willing buyer 27 would pay in cash to a willing seller” for the property. Kirby, 467 U.S. at 10 (quoting 28 564.54 Acres of Land, 441 U.S. at 511). Fair market value must be based on the property’s 1 “highest and best use,” which is the most profitable, legal use for which the property is 2 adaptable and needed or likely to be needed in the reasonably near future. See Olson v. 3 United States, 292 U.S. 246, 255 (1934). A property owner “must be made whole but is 4 not entitled to more.” Id. 5 The court determines just compensation where, as here, no party has demanded a 6 jury trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(h)(1). During the hearing on just compensation, “a 7 defendant – whether or not it has previously appeared or answered – may present evidence 8 on the amount of compensation to be paid and may share in the award.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 71.1(e)(3). The property owner bears the burden of proving just compensation. See United 10 States ex rel. Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Powelson, 319 U.S. 266, 273 (1943). An award of just 11 compensation may not be predicated on speculative or conjectural potential. See Olson, 12 292 U.S. at 255. 13 In this case, the United States has acquired the following Subject Property as a result 14 of condemnation pursuant to 40 U.S.C. §§ 3113 and 3114

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Olson v. United States
292 U.S. 246 (Supreme Court, 1934)
United States v. Miller
317 U.S. 369 (Supreme Court, 1943)
Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States
467 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. 7.46 Acres of Land, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-746-acres-of-land-casd-2021.