United States v. Merz 872 88 Acres of Land v. United States, Nos. 65

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DOUGLAS
• Citation: 84 S.Ct. 639,11 L.Ed.2d 629,376 U.S. 192
• Parties: UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Louis T. MERZ et al. 2,872.88 ACRES OF LAND, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES
• Docket Number: 79,Nos. 65
• Decision Date: 24 February 1964

376 U.S. 192 84 S.Ct. 639 11 L.Ed.2d 629 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,

v.

Louis T. MERZ et al. 2,872.88 ACRES OF LAND, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

Nos. 65, 79. Argued Jan. 13 and 14, 1964. Decided Feb. 24, 1964. Rehearing Denied April 6, 1964.

See 376 U.S. 973, 84 S.Ct. 1131.

No. 65:

Page 193

Roger P. Marquis, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Denver W. Meacham, Clinton, Okl., for respondents.

No. 79:

Forrest L. Champion, Jr., Columbus, Ga., for petitioners.

Harold S. Harrison, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases present questions co cerning the standards governing the preparation and review of reports of commissions appointed by district courts under Rule 71A(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure¹ to determine the

Page 194

issue of just compensation² in eminent domain proceedings. Some of the property interests taken are fee interests and some are flowage easements, road easements, and clearance easements.

Page 195

In No. 79 the District Court instructed the Commissioners on the standards of 'just compensation,' the factors that could be considered in determining it, the weight to be given the opinion of competent experts, the burden of proof, the conduct of the hearing to be held, and the propriety of viewing the lands in question. And they were instructed to file a written report 'setting forth separately your findings of fact and conclusions of law and the amount of just compensation to which you think each property owner or claimant is entitled.'

In No. 65 the District Court gave no instructions to the Commissioners, so far as the record shows.

The hearing in each case was transcribed by a reporter. In each, both the landowners and the Government produced witnesses. In No. 65 the effect of clearance easements on agricultural uses and on mineral values was contested. In No. 79 the testimony was widely at variance on the value of the fees. Severance damages were also hotly contested. The value of improvements was also at issue as respects one property.

In No. 65 the Commission filed a report in which it listed each tract, following which it added a dollar figure for 'Damages Assessed.' The Government objected to the adequacy of the report, as a result of which a supplemental one was filed which described in greater detail the clearance easements taken and stated that the highest and best use of the land was for general agricultural purposes. The supplemental report added that: (1) the United States was entitled to take the property and the landowners were entitled to just compensation; (2) just compensation was to be determined by subtracting the value of the landowners' interests immediately after the taking from their value immediately before the taking; (3) the use to which the Government would put the area taken by the clearance easements was not an issue in the case; and (4) certain evidence pertaining to

Page 196

a tract taken in fee simple was stricken, and the Government's motion to strike the testimony of one witness for the landowners was overruled.

In No. 79 three reports, one covering each landowner, were filed. Each report contained capsule re sume § of all testimony heard, and, as findings of fact, set forth a description of the interests taken, the lands' highest and best use, the acreage remaining after the taking and the amount of severance damage to it, the value of the fees taken and of each easement, and the total awards. Each report also stated that the United States had the right to take the land and that the landowners were entitled to just compensation, including severance damages. One report stated that a government objection to certain evidence had been overruled. The first report, in addition to placing a lump sum value on the fee interest taken, allowed no severance damage for the 'home place,' four miles away, and yet granted $15,785 severance damages to other portions of the remaining tract without explication and in spite of the fact that the landowner's expert fixed severance damages, apart from the 'home place,' at $12,435. In the second report the landowner's expert witness valued the entire tract at $52,500, the land taken at $36,125, and improvements at $12,700. The Government's experts did not value improvements separately but assessed the fee interest taken at $34,000. The Commission, without any findings concerning improvements, awarded $52,950—a sum in excess of the valuation placed on the full 400 acres by the landowner's expert—as compensation for taking about 330 acres. And it awarded $3,500 for severance damages though the highest estimate was $1,275. The third report valued lands at $105,080 while the landowner's own expert valued them at $93,693. The Commission also awarded severance damages without any indication as to the basis for them.

Page 197

In both No. 65 and No. 79, the District Courts adopted the Commissions' reports, setting forth no additional or supplementary grounds of decision nor taking further evidence to resolve any of the objections tendered by the Government. In No. 65 the Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that, although there was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to the amount of the damages, the awards were well within the range of the conflicting testimony. 10 Cir., 306 F.2d 39, 42. In No. 79 the Court of Appeals remanded for resubmission to the Commissioners, saying that the reports did not indicate which evidence the Commission credited and which it discredited, the degree to which the awards were based on the testimony of comparable sales, whether the sales were in fact comparable, and to what extent the awards depended on the opinions...