Katzin v. United States, 908 F.3d 1350

Background

Parcel dispute on Culebra, Puerto Rico: plaintiffs (Katzin family and Winters) hold undivided title to Parcel 4, which includes a 10.01-acre peninsula; the federal government (FWS/Navy) long asserted ownership over a smaller gun‑mount site and the maritime‑terrestrial zone.
Historical records and surveys (1887 Spanish survey, Navy Map No. 323, 1985 FWS survey) show inconsistent depictions of a gun‑mount site and coastal/maritime boundaries.
In 2006, an FWS employee (Beasley) faxed to a prospective purchaser (Klaber’s counsel) documents asserting FWS claims to a gun‑mount parcel on the peninsula; after the fax the buyer declined and other purchasers likewise refused.
Plaintiffs sued in the Court of Federal Claims alleging a Fifth Amendment physical taking (non‑possessory) of the 10.01‑acre peninsula and sought just compensation.
The Claims Court found plaintiffs’ title included the peninsula, that the 2006 fax rendered the property unsellable, and that the Beasley fax effected a non‑possessory physical taking of the entire peninsula, awarding compensation.
The Federal Circuit majority reversed: it held the fax was mere dissemination of the government’s ownership claim and not a physical or per se regulatory taking; it also held the 1980s postings/correspondence did not start the statute‑of‑limitations clock for the asserted 2006 taking.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs’ takings claim was time‑barred	Katzin: earlier signs/correspondence did not fix scope or interfere with use; claim accrued with 2006 fax	U.S.: 1985/1987 markers, maps, Navy Map No. 323 and correspondence put plaintiffs on notice and started the limitations period	Held: claim not time‑barred; earlier markers/maps likely related to maritime zone and did not fix the specific 2006 claim
Whether the 2006 Beasley fax effected a physical taking of the 10.01‑acre peninsula	Katzin: Fax communicated government ownership to buyers, made parcel unsellable, thus a non‑possessory physical taking (Yuba model)	U.S.: Fax merely shared information; no occupation, prohibition, or legal restraint on alienation; market reaction alone is not a taking	Held: Reversed — fax was not a physical taking or per se regulatory taking; dissemination of information and resulting price/market effect insufficient
Whether government signage/surveys in 1980s constituted a taking	Katzin: did not assert a taking then; dispute was maritime‑zone delimitation	U.S.: signs and survey markers constituted interference and notice	Held: 1980s signs and correspondence were linked to maritime zone and did not establish a taking or fix scope of the later claimed taking
Whether court must resolve title before takings remedy	Katzin: title adjudication is proper in a just‑compensation suit; ownership is a threshold issue	U.S.: (argued) title disputes better for Quiet Title Act/district court	Held: Majority did not need to resolve title because no physical taking; dissent argued Claims Court correctly adjudicated title and that title resolution was necessary to the takings inquiry

Key Cases Cited

Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (per se takings framework for total deprivation and discussion of physical invasions)
Tahoe‑Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (distinguishing physical takings from regulatory takings)
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (adopted framework for non‑per se regulatory takings)
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (permanent physical occupation as per se taking)
Kirby Forest Indus., Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 (market value changes from publicity/condemnation not necessarily a taking)
Yuba Goldfields, Inc. v. United States, 723 F.2d 884 (Fed. Cir.) (discussed by plaintiffs; treated as a regulatory‑type interference case)
Casitas Municipal Water Dist. v. United States, 543 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir.) (permanent physical invasion and total‑deprivation categories)
Dimare Fresh, Inc. v. United States, 808 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir.) (market incorporation of government information alone cannot create a taking)
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (statute of limitations accrual rule for suits against the United States)