U.S. v. 416.81 Acres of Land

• Decision Date: 22 April 1975
• Docket Number: No. 73-2104,73-2104
• Citation: 514 F.2d 627
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 416.81 ACRES OF LAND, etc., and Mercantile National Bank of Indiana, as Trustee, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 627

514 F.2d 627

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 416.81 ACRES OF LAND, etc., and Mercantile National Bank of Indiana, as Trustee, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 73-2104.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued Jan. 15, 1975.

Decided April 22, 1975.

Wayland B. Cedarquist, Chicago, Ill., Owen W. Crumpacker, Hammond, Ind., Malcolm E. Anderson, Chesterton, Ind., for defendants-appellants.

John R. Wilks, U. S. Atty., Fort Wayne, Ind., Richard Kieser, Asst. U. S. Atty., South Bend, Ind. and Wallace H. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert L. Klarquist, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CLARK, Associate Justice, ^* CUMMINGS and TONE, Circuit Judges.

Mr. Justice CLARK.

The landowner in this condemnation proceeding ¹ appeals from a jury verdict awarding $174,660.00 for Tract No. 02-126, consisting of 84.2 acres of undeveloped land near Lake Michigan, taken by the Government for the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. ² Appellant complains that the jury award was grossly inadequate and attacks numerous rulings of the trial judge as prejudicial or erroneous. We have carefully examined the lengthy record and the briefs submitted by counsel and conclude that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

I.

Appellant's first claim is that the district court erred in striking, sua sponte, all of the defenses and objections raised by the landowner in his responsive pleadings prior to trial. Landowner's answer was filed on June 22, 1970, specifying two "Objections" which appellant has summarized in his brief (along with a short description of the district court's conclusions) as follows:

First Objection

FIRST GROUND: The only authority for the taking is the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Act of 1966, 16 USCA Sec. 460 (460u) et seq. COURT ORDER: States no Defense.

SECOND GROUND: The Act is unconstitutional in that it authorizes taking of lands without providing for just compensation and without due process. COURT ORDER: Too indefinite.

THIRD GROUND: The taking under the Act is constitutionally invalid as being in aid of the commercial seaport project, the Burns Waterway Harbor. COURT ORDER: Fails to show bad faith or abuse of discretion.

FOURTH GROUND: The Act is constitutionally invalid in that, by virtue of the foregoing, it benefits encircling industries, to the detriment of adjacent properties. COURT ORDER: Fails to show bad faith or abuse of discretion.

FIFTH GROUND: The foregoing has had the result of increasing industrial property values 100% since 1959 while diminishing the value of adjacent properties. COURT ORDER: To be determined at Trial.

Second Objection

FIRST GROUND: The Government has discriminated against Landowner Crumpacker and others similarly situated with reference to purchasing procedures. COURT ORDER: Too indefinite.

SECOND GROUND: The Government's purchasing procedures for encircling industries are described and the Government's offers to individual property owners are stated to be about one-tenth of the same. COURT ORDER: Fails to show bad faith or abuse of discretion.

THIRD GROUND: The Government's use of an omnibus condemnation procedure, lumping dissimilar properties together, is prejudicial. COURT ORDER: No Defense.

On September 16, 1970, the district court entered a five-page order striking all of these objections sua sponte. Although Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) provides, and appellant acknowledges, that: "(U)pon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter," appellant claims that his defenses should not have been stricken without notice and a hearing. He argues that the district court was concerned in its order "not only with alleged insufficiency of certain Defenses but also with alleged indefiniteness, something to be cured as provided by Rule 12(e), Motion for a More Definite Statement." Appellant concludes that he should have been allowed a hearing and an opportunity to amend his answer.

We are not persuaded by the argument that the trial court should have held some sort of hearing prior to striking appellant's defenses. The essence of a motion to strike whether made by a party or by the court sua sponte ³ is the consideration of the defense on its face without further facts or elaboration, and in that sense a hearing is quite unnecessary. Where the legal issues presented by a defense were particularly complicated, the opportunity to present briefs and to make oral argument might be considered essential; indeed, in those circumstances, the motion to strike would likely be an inappropriate vehicle for the consideration of complex issues. But that is not this case.

Nor do we find any merit in appellant's contention that the district court in effect denied him the right to amend his pleadings. Nothing in the court's order forbade appellant from amending his answer, and we note that he never sought leave of court to file any amendments in the three full years between September 16, 1970, when his defenses were stricken, and September 27, 1973, when this case finally went to trial. We therefore perceive nothing prejudicial in the district court's order.

The broader question, of course, is whether the defenses were properly stricken as insufficient. The guidelines for this determination have recently been stated as follows The duty of this Court is to determine whether such defenses as presented do indeed present substantial questions of law or fact which may not be stricken. If any such substantial questions exist, the motion cannot be granted; neither will it be granted if the insufficiency of the defense is not clearly apparent on the face of the pleadings, nor can reasonably be inferred from any state of facts in the pleadings. The purpose of such narrow standards is ". . . to provide a party the opportunity to prove his allegations if there is a possibility that his defense or defenses may succeed after a full hearing on the merits." (United States v. 187.40 Acres of Land, Huntingdon County, Pa., 381 F.Supp. 54, 56 (M.D.Pa.1974) (citations omitted).)

Although it is said that a motion to strike a defense as insufficient is "not favored" by the courts because of its potential as a dilatory tactic, see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1381 (1969), it is nonetheless "a useful and appropriate tool" for weighing the legal implications to be drawn from uncontroverted facts, id. In this regard, a Rule 12(f) motion "admits only facts well pleaded, and mere conclusions of law, not warranted by the asserted facts have no efficacy." United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in Cheyenne, Wyo., 141 F.Supp. 300, 305 (D.Wyo.1956). Here, even accepting as true the factual underpinnings of appellant's objections, we do not perceive that any of them constitute a valid defense to the proposed taking.

On this appeal, the landowner paraphrases the fundament of his defense in the following manner:

The Government's taking, though ostensibly for Park purposes alone, was in fact done to further construction of the commercial seaport project known as Burns Waterway Harbor.

The Lakeshore Act, in fact, establishes a cordon of industries and commercial interests whose property values (favored by the foregoing tie-in) increased 100% since 1959, as against a two-thirds decrease in the value of Landowner Crumpacker's property since 1900.

The Government in October 1967 and in 1968 paid $14,000 an Acre to Inland Steel as against offers of one-tenth of that to private property owners.

The foregoing is part of a pattern of conduct by the Government, furthered by the Government's purchasing procedures, all resulting in discrimination against private non-commercial property owners, depriving them of property without just compensation and due process.

Though appellant's statement pieces together and rewrites different grounds from different objections, we will accept his version as the strongest presentation of his dual claims that the proposed taking was not for a public purpose and was arbitrary and capricious. Even under these circumstances, however, he has not alleged any sufficient defense. The only question for judicial review in a condemnation proceeding is whether the purpose for which property was taken is for a Congressionally authorized public use. Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 32-33, 75 S.Ct. 98, 99 L.Ed. 27 (1954); United States ex rel. TVA v. Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 552, 66 S.Ct. 715, 90 L.Ed. 843 (1946). It is not for the courts to review the necessity of the taking. Berman v. Parker, supra, 348 U.S. at 35-36, 75 S.Ct. 98; United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 247, 67 S.Ct. 252, 91 L.Ed. 209 (1946); United States v. Certain Real Estate, Nashville, Tenn., 217 F.2d 920, 924 (6th Cir. 1954); United States v. 80.5 Acres in Shasta County, Cal., 448 F.2d 980, 983 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. 2606.84 Acres in Tarrant County, Tex., 432 F.2d 1286, 1289 (5th Cir. 1970). Nor is it for the courts to consider broadside allegations that the purported public use to be served is merely a pretense or a sham to cover arbitrary official conduct. United States v. 6,321 Acres in Suffolk County, Mass., 479 F.2d 404 (1st Cir. 1973); United States v. 80.5 Acres in Shasta County, Cal., supra; United States v. Bowman, 367 F.2d 768 (7th Cir. 1966). Only in cases of egregious bad faith will the right to condemn be denied, United States v. 2606.84 Acres in Tarrant County, Tex., supra, 432 F.2d at 1290 (5th Cir. 1970), for in those circumstances the taking may not be for a "public" use at all.

Appellant seeks to bring himself under this latter exception and, in this regard places reliance on this Circuit's recent decision in United States v. 58.16 Acres in Clinton County, Ill., 478 F.2d 1055 (7th Cir. 1973). This reliance is wholly misplaced. In the Clinton County case, a landowner...