Chapman v. United States
107 Fed. Cl. 47
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- July 18, 2007 a lightning strike ignited the Poe Cabin fire in the HCNRA; the fire burned for six weeks across federal, state, and private lands.
- To fight the Poe Cabin fire, the Forest Service started a backfire on July 19, 2007.
- Plaintiffs own parcels in Deer Creek, Idaho County, Idaho, including timber and personal property damaged by the backfire.
- The backfire consumed plaintiffs’ timber and other property, depriving them of use, value, and enjoyment.
- Plaintiffs allege the burning was the direct, natural, or probable result of an authorized act and that the government knew it would destroy their property.
- The government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); court applies Ridge Line framework to determine takings claim viability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether destruction of timber/personal property to prevent fire spread constitutes a taking. | Plaintiffs contend destruction of timber/personal property is a taking under Ridge Line. | Government argues destruction to prevent fire spread is not a taking and may be tortious if excessive. | No taking; destruction to stop fire spread is not a compensable taking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridge Line, Inc. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (two-prong Ridge Line test for takings)
- Cary v. United States, 552 F.3d 1373 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (taking when government invasions allow reoccupancy; real-property focus)
- Hartwig v. United States, 485 F.2d 615 (Ct.Cl. 1973) (flood/takings; destruction not necessarily a taking)
- TrinCo Investment Co. v. United States, 106 Fed.Cl. 98 (Fed.Cl. 2012) (government destruction to prevent fire spread not a taking)
- Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 502 (Supreme Court 1923) (principle that government acts to stop a fire are not compensable takings)
- Lucas v. S. C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (Supreme Court 1992) (context for nature of property rights and takings analysis)
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (Supreme Court 1922) (magnitude of diminution not controlling in isolation)