United States v. 0.073 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Parishes of Orleans & Jefferson
705 F.3d 540
5th Cir.2013Background
- Mariner’s Cove Townhomes Association (MCTA) sues after condemnation of 14 of 58 units impaired its ability to collect assessments.
- Declarations create a 1/58 share of maintenance obligations running with the land; MCTA asserts the right to collect assessments is compensable.
- Corps condemned 14 units for pumping station access; landowners were compensated, but MCTA’s claim remained unresolved.
- District court granted judgment for the United States, holding MCTA’s assessment-right not compensable under the Takings Clause.
- MCTA appeals; the court addresses whether the loss of the assessment base constitutes a taking and if it is compensable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is MCTA’s right to collect assessments a compensable property interest under the Takings Clause? | MCTA’s right runs with the land as a real covenant/ building restriction. | The right is not compensable because it is incidental to the taking and not a property interest in the condemned land. | Not compensable; the interest is not a compensable property right. |
| Does Louisiana law recognize MCTA’s assessment-right as a property interest for takings purposes? | Right is an incorporeal immovable (building restriction) running with the land. | Even if property-like, it is not a compensable interest under takings doctrine. | Right is a property interest under Louisiana law, but not compensable under the Takings Clause. |
| Does the consequential loss rule bar compensation for diminution of the assessment base? | Adaman allows compensability of a covenant-like right. | Losses are incidental to the taking and not compensable under the consequential loss rule. | Yes; the consequential loss rule applies, defeating compensation. |
| Is Adaman Mutual Water Co. v. United States controlling for compensability here? | Adaman supports compensability of the assessment-right as a direct covenant with land. | This case is distinguishable; no direct land-substance connection exists. | Adaman is not controlling; distinction leads to non-compensability. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373 (1945) (takings defined by property, taken interest and just compensation)
- United States ex rel. Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Powelson, 319 U.S. 266 (1943) (property interests defined by local law)
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) (property interests defined by rules independent of Constitution)
- Adaman Mut. Water Co. v. United States, 278 F.2d 842 (1960) (consequential loss rule and covenants running with land)
- Tri-State Sand & Gravel, L.L.C. v. Cox, 871 So.2d 1253 (La. Ct. App. 2004) (Louisiana view on building restrictions and assessments)
- Oakbrook Civic Ass’n, Inc. v. Sonnier, 481 So.2d 1008 (La. 1986) (affirmative duties to pay assessments as building restrictions)
- Gremillion v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 134 So.2d 700 (La. Ct. App. 1961) (re restrictive covenants not compensable in some contexts)
- Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 2 v. Dean, 345 So.2d 234 (La. Ct. App. 1977) (building restrictions and public policy considerations)