DECISION
The appellants in this case are individuals who once leased portions of the Allega-ny Reservation from the Seneca Nation of Indians (“SNI”) in the western part of the State of New York. The appellants argue that the enactment of a federal statute, the Seneca Nation Land Claims Settlement Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. § 1774 (1994 & Supp. IV 2000) (“Act of 1990”), constitutes a taking of certain property interests in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed appellants’ claims on cross-motions for summary judgment. Banner v. United States,
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
The SNI is a sovereign Native American tribe who presently reside on two separate land parcels. One is the Cattaraugus Reservation; the other is the Allegany Reservation. The latter is located near the city of Salamanca, in the western part of the State of New York. See Banner,
The SNI is one of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy (“Iroquois Confederacy”). The Iroquois Confederacy, or Hau-denosaunee, is believed to have been formed in the fifteenth century when the legendary Hiawatha and the Great Peacemaker united the warring eastern Native American tribes. Prior to European colonization, the Iroquois Confederacy exercised active dominion over nearly thirty-five million acres, most of what is now the states of New York and Pennsylvania, and was considered the most powerful peacekeeping force of Native Americans east of the Mississippi River.
The land erosion of the Iroquois Confederacy started with the French and Indian War and culminated with the Revolutionary War. By the end of the Revolutionary War, individual member nations of the Iroquois Confederacy had lost most of their aboriginal land to European settlers. In October 1784, under the authority of the Articles of Confederation, the United States and the Iroquois Confederacy entered into the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, 7 Stat. 15. This treaty secured peace between the United States and certain members of the Iroquois Confederacy, and guaranteed their land holdings in exchange for their relinquishing claim to certain western territory. In 1790, at the urging of President George Washington, the United States Congress passed the first Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, 1 Stat. 137, which required federal approval of all land transactions with Native American tribes. In 1794, the United States and the Iroquois Confederacy entered into the Treaty of Canandaigua, or the Pickering Treaty, 7 Stat. 44.
This treaty, like the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, recognized the land rights of certain members of the Iroquois Confederacy, including the SNI, and was one of the first federal treaties executed between the United States and any Native American tribe under the authority of the United States Constitution. Specifically, the Treaty of Canandaigua set the boundary of the land of the SNI consisting of much of the western part of the State of New York; it was bounded by Lake Ontario just west of modern-day Rochester, west to the Canadian border, south along the Niagara River through modern-day Buffalo, southwest along Lake Erie to the Pennsylvania border, east to the Genesee River, and north through modern-day Geneseo back to Lake Ontario.
Throughout the mid 1800s, white settlers began to settle in a certain area of the Allegany Reservation, located at the junction of three major inter-continental railroads. This junction and settlement became what is now known as the city of Salamanca in the County of Cattaraugus in the State of New York.
Early settlers entered into property leases with the SNI to remain on the land. Prior to 1875, however, a New York state court invalidated the leases because the SNI, a Native American tribe, did not have congressional authority to lease land. Banner,
When the leases expired in 1880, the SNI renewed them for twelve years in accordance with the Act of 1875. Banner,
In 1969, anticipating the expiration of these 99 year leases, the City of Salamanca created the Salamanca Indian Lease Authority (“SILA”) to negotiate new leases with the SNI. Banner,
Congress enacted the Act of 1990 to effectuate the Agreement, because “the future economic success of the [SNI] ... is tied to the securing of a future lease agreement.” 25 U.S.C. § 1774(a)(5). The Act of 1990 provides for the payment to the SNI of $35 million from the federal government and $25 million from the State of New York, provided that the SNI both ratified the Agreement and offered the 40/40 leases to the then-existing lessees. 25 U.S.C. § 1774e. Furthermore, Congress enacted the Act of 1990 because it recognized that the United States had breached its fiduciary obligation arising from “the unique trust relationship” with Native American tribes. See, e.g., County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation,
By entering into a system of treaties, agreements, and statutes, a unique trust relationship has been created between the United States and Native American tribes. The United States has “charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust,” and its management of Native American affairs must be “judged by the most exacting fiduciary standard.” See Seminole Nation v. United States,
B. Procedural Background
On November 30, 1990, shortly after the enactment of the Act of 1990, the appellants first filed suit in the Western District of New York. Counts one, eight, and ten of the complaint asserted, among other things, that the 99-year leases granted a right to renew, and that the Agreement and the Act of 1990 violated the Act of 1875 and provisions of the United States Constitution. On January 25, 1991, the District Court dismissed these counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 because the SNI was an indispensable party, but was immune from suit. Fluent v. SILA Civ. 90-1229A. slip op. (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 1991) (“First District Court Action”).
The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. “Plaintiffs again argued that they possessed property rights to both renew the leases via arbitration and own the improvements on the land.” Banner,
On remand before a magistrate, the plaintiffs argued, among other things, that (1) SILA had denied their right to negotiate with the SNI, and (2) SILA had interfered with their property rights in ownership of improvements and occupancy. Fluent v. SILA
Some of the unsuccessful plaintiffs, nevertheless, refused to accept the 40/40 leases, and refused to vacate the land when the 99 year leases expired. On May 5, 1995, therefore, the United States brought an action in the Western District of New York on behalf of the SNI to eject these individuals. The magistrate recommended that judgment be entered for the SNI because (1) the SNI owned the land; (2) the individuals had no right to renew their leases pursuant to the prior decisions; (3) the SNI was not a necessary party to the ejectment because the United States represented their interests; and (4) the SNI had been wrongfully denied possession of their property by the defendants. United States v. Fluent, 95-CV-0356A(H), slip op. (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 1997) (adopting United States v. Fluent, 95-CV-356A(H), Magistrate Report and Recommendation, July 9, 1996) (“Ejectment Action”). The District Court ordered the individuals to vacate the land between June 30, 1997 and August 29, 1997. Id. There was no appeal from the panel judgment issued in the Ejectment Action.
Instead, on November 4, 1996, the appellants filed this action in the Court of Federal Claims as a plaintiffs class action. There are two categories of plaintiffs who are now appellants: (1) the unsuccessful District Court plaintiffs that chose not to accept the 40/40 leases and were later ejected (“Ejectment Appellants”), and (2) the unsuccessful District Court plaintiffs that accepted the 40/40 leases but nevertheless contest the validity of the leases. These appellants are identified as the Sala-manca Coalition of United Taxpayers (“SCOUT Appellants”). The appellants’ basic legal premise was that the Act of 1990 violates the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment. On September 4, 1997, the Court of Federal Claims denied class certification. On August 11, 1999, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the Due Process claim, and granted summary judgment for the United States on the Takings claim. Banner,
First, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the Due Process Claim for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 573. Second, the Court of Federal Claims held that collateral estoppel bars the Ejectment Appellants because the property interest in this case is identical to the one decided in the Ejectment Action. Id. at 574-75. Third, the Court of Federal Claims held that claims by SCOUT Appellants were not ripe because they had “not now lost, and may never lose, the property rights asserted.” Id. at 576. On October 7, 1999, the appellants filed a notice of appeal to this court.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. See Strickland v. United States,
III. DISCUSSION
The appellants contend that the Act of 1990 violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by taking their property interests in (1) the right to renew or negotiate their leases with SNI, and (2) the right to own the improvements on their leased land.
A. Right to Renew or Negotiate Leases
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, serves to bar the revisiting of issues that have already been litigated by the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action. See Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys.,
In this ease, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Ejectment Action had already determined that the Ejectment Appellants did not possess compen-sable property interests in the land or the improvements. Banner,
The appellants now argue that the Court of Federal Claims improperly applied collateral estoppel. The appellants argue that they never had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue and that it has “never been actually litigated in any forum.” The appellants assert that the Second District Court Action and the Ejectment Action relied, without examination, on the holding of the Second Circuit. However, it cannot be contested that the first three requirements for collateral es-toppel are met. Despite appellants’ assertion to the contrary, the issue was “actually litigated” before the Second Circuit because it was properly raised by the pleadings, was submitted for determination, and was determined. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 comment d (1980).
The appellants also had a “full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues.” See Jet,
In determining whether a party has had a “full and fair” opportunity to litigate an issue, a court should look at (1) whether there were significant procedural limitations in the prior proceeding, (2) whether the party had an incentive to litigate fully the issue, and (3) whether effective litigation was limited by the nature or relationship of the parties. See Sil-Flo v. SFHC, Inc.,
The fact that the Second Circuit decided this issue as an alternative ground not addressed by the court in the First District Court Action does not detract from the preclusive effect of its decision. An appellate court “may affirm the district court on a ground not selected by the district judge so long as the record fairly supports such an alternative disposition of the issue.” See, e.g., Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp.,
This court further holds, as did the Court of Federal Claims, that the decision of the Ejectment Action must also be given preclusive effect pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel. As recognized by the Court of Federal Claims, this issue was briefed, argued, and actually litigated during the Ejectment Action. See Banner,
The Second Circuit held that neither the Act of 1875 nor the 99-year leases themselves granted any further right to negotiate a renewal. See Fluent,
Therefore, the appellants do not possess any compensable property interest
B. Right to Own Improvements to the Leased Land
The appellants also argue that they possess a property interest in the improvements to the leased land. The appellants argue in their brief that “by the plain language of the leases and the Acts of 1875 and 1890, it was clearly expressed and understood that the lessees had built and paid for the improvements on the land and that they owned those improvements.” The appellants point to language in the Act of 1875 that states, “the persons who may be at such time the owner or owners of improvements erected upon such lands, shall be entitled to such renewed leases.” However, the appellants admitted at oral argument that there is no such “express” language in the 99-year leases.
Under the general law of improvements, it is well settled that improvements to realty are considered part of the real property; ownership of the improvements follows title to the land. See, e.g., In re Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co.,
Therefore, that the appellants may have actually owned the improvements while subject to the 99-year lease is irrelevant. When the 99-year leases expired on February 19, 1991, all improvements, including buildings, reverted to the SNI.
Consequently, neither the Ejectment Appellants nor the SCOUT Appellants possess any compensable property interest in the improvements to the leased land.
IV. CONCLUSION
The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
COSTS
Costs are awarded to the Defendants Appellee.
Notes
. Under the Treaty of Canandaigua, the land of the SNI consisted of modern-day Chautau
. It is important to emphasize that the Act of 1990 specifically disavows the role of the United States in approving any lease. "The
. This court holds only that the ownership interest of improvements under the 99-year leases reverted to the SNI at the expiration of those leases. This court recognizes that the 40/40 leases do not determine the ownership of improvements, but rather reserve the parties’ rights to decide that issue. The Ejectment Defendants chose not to enter into the 40/40 leases, and have given up any possible property interest in the improvements. While recognizing above the general rule of improvements, nothing in this opinion precludes the SNI from granting the SCOUT Appellants ownership interests in the improvements, pursuant to the 40/40 leases.