Childers v. United States

• Decision Date: 02 April 2014
• Docket Number: No. 07-4262,No. 08-1981,08-1981,07-4262
• Parties: NATHAN and DEBORAH CHILDERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. CALUSA LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

NATHAN and DEBORAH CHILDERS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
CALUSA LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 08-1981
No. 07-4262

United States Court of Federal Claims

Filed: August 5, 2013
Reissed: April 2, 2014

Fifth Amendment Taking; Rails- to-Trails, 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq.; Just Compensation; Fair Market Value of Property Pre- and Post- Taking; Severance Damages; Conversion Land Damages; Cost to Cure; Buffering; Loss of Access; Unit Rule; Noneconomic Remainder; Highest and Best Use; Private Deed Restrictions; Public Use Restrictions; Zoning; Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; Expert Disclosures; Striking Expert Testimony.

Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II, Lindsay S.C. Brinton, and Meghan S. Largent, Arent Fox LLP, 112 S. Hanley Road, Suite 200, Clayton, MO 63105; Debra J. Albin-Riley and Joseph L. Cavinato, III, Arent Fox LLP, 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90013, for Plaintiffs.

Ignacia S. Moreno, Carol L. Draper, Lary Cook Larson, and Jason A. Hill, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, 601 D Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20044; Kristine S. Tardiff, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, 53 Pleasant Street, 4th Floor, Concord, NH 03301, for Defendant. Charlotte M. Youngblood, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, 601 D Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20044, of Counsel.

Page 2

OPINION AND ORDER
Contents

Findings of Fact ..................... 6

Discussion ..................... 8

Jurisdiction ..................... 8
Legal Standards Governing Just Compensation ................................. 8
Appraisals of the Subject Properties .............................. 10
The Experts' Methodologies ...................... 10

Quantitative Versus Qualitative Comparable Sales Analysis ................... 10

Appraisal Principles .......................... 12

The Propriety of Applying a Large-Lot Discount ....................... 12
The Propriety of Considering Use Restrictions .................... 14
The Efficacy of a Private Deed Restriction ..................... 17
Public Use Restrictions and the Ability to Rezone Property in Sarasota County in 2004 ............. 20

The Taking's Effect on the Fair Market Value of Properties Adjacent to the Trail ............. 25

Plaintiffs' Paired Sales Analysis .......................... 25
Plaintiffs' Anecdotal Evidence .......................... 26
Plaintiffs' Evidence on Potential Future Uses of the Legacy Trail ............... 27
Defendant's Paired Sales Analysis ................... 27
Defendant's Trail Impact Studies .................... 27
Defendant's Anecdotal Evidence ............................ 28
Defendant's Evidence on Future Uses of the Legacy Trail .................. 29

The Court's Assessment of the Experts' Opinions on Whether the Legacy Trail Negatively Impacted Property Values .................... 29
The Diminution in Value to the Remainder Due to the Trail ....................... 31

The Width of the Buffer ...................... 31
The Cost of Buffering .................. 33

Just Compensation for Plaintiffs' Individual Properties ........................... 35

Mission Valley ............... 35

Plaintiffs' Expert's Valuation of Mission Valley .................. 35
Defendant's Expert's Valuation of Mission Valley ............................ 39

Page 3

What Is the Proper "Before Value" of Mission Valley? .................. 42
Just Compensation for Mission Valley ............... 44

Stoneybrook ................. 44

Plaintiffs' Expert's Valuation of Stoneybrook .................. 44
Defendant's Expert's Valuation of Stoneybrook ................ 48
What Is the Proper "Before Value" of Stoneybrook? ............ 51
Just Compensation for Stoneybrook ................... 53

TPC-Prestancia .............. 55

Plaintiffs' Expert's Valuation of TPC-Prestancia ................ 55
Defendant's Expert's Valuation of TPC-Prestancia ...................... 60
What Is the Proper "Before Value" of TPC-Prestancia? .................. 63
Just Compensation for TPC-Prestancia ..................... 64

Arielle ................... 64

Plaintiffs' Expert's Valuation of Arielle .................... 66
Defendant's Expert's Valuation of Arielle .................... 70
What Is the Proper "Before Value" of Arielle? .................. 73
Just Compensation for Arielle ..................... 75

JMC ........................ 76

What Is the Proper "Before Value" of JMC? ................. 76
Just Compensation for JMC ................. 76

Palmer Ranch ............. 78

Plaintiffs' Expert's Valuation of Palmer Ranch ....................... 79
Defendant's Expert's Valuation of Palmer Ranch ................... 83
What Is the Proper "Before Value" of Palmer Ranch? ................... 86
Just Compensation for Palmer Ranch ................... 86

Pine Ranch East .................... 90

Plaintiffs' Expert's Valuation of Pine Ranch East ...................... 90
Defendant's Expert's Valuation of Pine Ranch East .................... 94
What Is the Proper "Before Value" of Pine Ranch East? .................. 97
Just Compensation for Pine Ranch East ................... 98

Calusa Lakes ......... 99

Plaintiffs' Expert's Valuation of Calusa Lakes ............... 100
Defendant's Expert's Valuation of Calusa Lakes ................. 103

Page 4

What Is the Proper "Before Value" of Calusa Lakes? ................... 106
Just Compensation for Calusa Lakes ...................... 108

The Childers Property ..................... 108

What Is the Proper "Before Value" of the Childers Property? .................... 109
Just Compensation for the Childers Property ................... 109

The Marlin Property ..................... 109

What Is the Proper "Before Value" of the Marlin Property? ................. 110
Just Compensation for the Marlin Property .............. 110

The Davids Property ...................... 110

Plaintiffs' Expert's Valuation of the Davids Property ............. 111
Defendant's Expert's Valuation of the Davids Property ................ 114
What Is the Proper "Before Value" of the Davids Property? ............. 116
Just Compensation for the Davids Property .................. 117

The Mirman Property ................. 117

Plaintiffs' Expert's Valuation of the Mirman Property .................. 118
Defendant's Expert's Valuation of the Mirman Property ............... 121
What Is the Proper "Before Value" of the Mirman Property? ................. 124
Just Compensation for the Mirman Property ............. 124

The Glueck Property ..................... 125

What Is the Proper "Before Value" of the Glueck Property? ................ 125
Motion to Strike Expert Testimony Regarding Buffering on the Glueck Property ................ 125
Just Compensation for the Glueck Property ................. 130

Conclusion ................... 133

Appendix A: Northern Segment of Palmer Ranch DRI ................ 135

Appendix B: Southern Segment of Palmer Ranch DRI ................ 136

Appendix C: Aerial View of TPC ................... 137

Appendix D: Aerial View of Arielle .................... 138

Appendix E: Arielle Conceptual Development Plan ................ 139

Appendix F: Plat for Arielle .................. 140

Appendix G: Aerial View of JMC ................. 141

Appendix H: Aerial View of Palmer Ranch .................... 142

Appendix I: Aerial View of Pine Ranch East ...................... 143

Appendix J: Aerial View of Calusa Lakes .................... 144

Page 5

Appendix K: Aerial View of the Glueck Property ...................... 145

Page 6

WILLIAMS, Judge.

This Fifth Amendment taking case comes before the Court following a trial on damages. Plaintiffs, landowners of 13 separate properties in Sarasota, Florida, seek just compensation stemming from the imposition of a recreational trail across their properties pursuant to the Rails to Trails Act.¹ Specifically, Plaintiffs seek $8,703,800, representing $4,938,200 for the encumbrance of the trail and $3,765,600 in severance damages. Defendant asserts that compensation should be limited to the encumbrance, which it claims is properly valued at $2,220,900. The Court awards just compensation in the amount of $5,701,579.73 representing $4,706,047.56 for the land encumbered by the corridor plus severance damages of $995,532.17.

Findings of Fact ²

On April 2, 2004, the Surface Transportation Board ("STB") issued an order authorizing a "rail-to-trail" conversion of a railroad right-of-way in Sarasota County, measuring 12.43 miles...