United States v. Harrell
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9440
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Appellants owned an undivided 12.5% mineral interest in land within the Baca Ranch; the government took the surface and 87.5% mineral interests in 2006 for a national preserve.
- A commission under Rule 71.1(h) determined the value of the mineral interest at $6.1 million after trial-like proceedings in March 2009.
- The government sought to offer $700,000 initially; the district court later valued the property at $3.8 million for compensation.
- Appellants moved to adopt the Commission’s $6.1 million value, but the district court rejected that adoption for purposes of valuation.
- At a sanctions hearing, the government’s late disclosure of an appraisal allowed rebuttal testimony showing potential higher values (up to $33 million).
- The district court ultimately awarded $3.8 million as just compensation and denied EAJA fees; the district court also sanctioned the government for discovery conduct, but EAJA fees were denied because appellants were not prevailing party under § 2412(d)(2)(H).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants are the prevailing party under EAJA §2412(d)(2)(H). | Appellants: their $6.1M Commission valuation was closest to the judgment. | Government: only values testified to in court count; $6.1M not attested at trial. | No; 'attested to at trial' requires highest in-trial testimony; appellants not prevailing party. |
| Whether the Commission’s $6.1M valuation can be used as appellants’ attested valuation. | Appellants: adoption of $6.1M should be treated as attesting to that value. | Adoption does not equal attestation of value; testimony must occur in court. | No; motion to adopt does not make $6.1M attested values for §2412(d)(2)(H). |
| Whether the district court properly used the highest valuation testified to at trial for the math under §2412(d)(2)(H). | Appellants: use $30.6M–$33M highest testimony. | Use highest valuation testified to at trial; government’s $186,500 closer to judgment. | District court properly used trial testimony; appellants not prevailing party. |
| Whether EAJA must be strictly construed in this context. | Appellants: interpretive flexibility could reflect congressional intent. | Court must strictly construe EAJA; no exceptions for manifest injustice. | Yes; strict construction applies; no exception to §2412(d)(2)(H). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Charles Gyurman Land & Cattle Co., 836 F.2d 480 (10th Cir. 1987) (strict construction of EAJA; rely on court-tested definition of prevailing party)
- United States v. 1002.35 Acres of Land, 942 F.2d 733 (10th Cir. 1991) (applies 1985 amendments; highest trial-attested value governs)
- United States v. 2,116 Boxes of Boned Beef, 726 F.2d 1481 (10th Cir. 1984) (standard of review for EAJA determinations (abuse of discretion; de novo law))