Lost Tree Village Corporation v. United States
707 F.3d 1286
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Lost Tree developed the John’s Island community, but Plat 57 (4.99 acres) lay largely undeveloped within that framework.
- Plat 57 includes wetlands and submerged lands; Plat 55 lies adjacent but was developed separately.
- Lost Tree did not plat or dedicate Plat 57 or stub utilities for it during initial John’s Island development.
- In 2002 Lost Tree applied for a state/local permit and a §404 permit to fill wetlands on Plat 57; the Corps denied in 2004.
- The Court of Federal Claims held the relevant parcel to be Plat 57 as part of a broader John’s Island unit, denying takings liability.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, holding Plat 57 alone is the relevant parcel and remanded for calculating loss on Plat 57 and applying the proper takings framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the relevant parcel for takings analysis? | Lost Tree argues Plat 57, Plat 55, and wetlands should be treated as the parcel. | The government argues the parcel includes the broader John’s Island unit. | Plat 57 alone is the relevant parcel. |
| Did the §404 permit denial constitute a compensable regulatory taking? | Lost Tree contends the denial deprived it of all economically viable use. | The government contends the denial does not amount to a taking under Penn Central/Lucas. | Remand required to apply the proper framework after parcel definition. |
| How should the court apply the parcel-based takings framework? | The analysis should consider economic impact and investment-backed expectations for the parcel. | The analysis should follow the Penn Central framework with the defined parcel. | Court to apply Penn Central/Lucas framework to Plat 57 on remand. |
| Is the development history consistent with treating Plat 57 as part of John’s Island? | Lost Tree treated Plat 57 as part of the broader development. | Plat 57 was essentially ignored in John’s Island development and had separate development trajectory. | Support for Plat 57 as a separate parcel, not part of the John’s Island unit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 28 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (regulatory takings require consideration of parcel and value impact)
- Palm Beach Isles Assocs. v. United States, 208 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (parcel definition affects Penn Central analysis and Lucas framework)
- Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (Supreme Court 1992) (categorical take when no economically viable use remains, with narrow exceptions)
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (Supreme Court 1978) (essential framework for regulatory takings: character of regulation, economic impact, and investment-backed expectations)
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (Supreme Court 2002) (parcels as unit of analysis and flexible, fact-specific inquiry)
- Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (relevance of claimant’s economic expectations in parcel identification)
- Forest Properties, Inc. v. United States, 177 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (unit-of-property analysis when multiple parcels treated as single project)
- Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court 1987) (value comparison depends on defining the denominator (parcel) for takings)
- Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (Supreme Court 2001) (takings inquiries are guided by parcel-wide focus and surrounding rights)