Hendler v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Corporations

CorporationsTakingsDamagesPhysical takingSpecial benefitsNuisancetakingsdamages

Facts

The government installed wells on plaintiffs' property to monitor and determine the extent of a contaminated groundwater plume migrating beneath the land and threatening downstream drinking water supplies. In the earlier liability phase, the court found a physical taking of twenty well easements, each consisting of a 50-by-50-foot area with access corridors, but also found that the wells did not materially interfere with the property's day-to-day use and that the access order did not reduce the property's value or prevent development. The court had already found that the property's reduced value stemmed from the contamination itself, not from the government's actions, and that investigation and remediation efforts restored value and increased marketability and financeability. At the damages phase, plaintiffs sought compensation for the easements and severance damages, while the government argued that any compensation was offset by special benefits from characterization and remediation of the contamination.

Issue

Whether plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for the physical taking of well easements and access corridors, or whether any value of the part taken was offset entirely by special benefits conferred on the remainder of the property. The court also addressed whether California nuisance principles confirmed a preexisting limitation on plaintiffs' property rights relevant to the case.

Rule

When only part of a property is taken, compensation is reduced by direct, special benefits conferred on the remainder, but not by general community benefits. Federal law governs the special-benefits analysis in this court. Where contaminated groundwater beneath property constitutes a public nuisance under California law, there is a preexisting limitation on property rights permitting access for nuisance abatement, and damages based on speculative interference or on the government's asserted powers rather than its actual use are not recoverable.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Riverside, California, federal contractors installed narrow access easements and several small testing pads on land owned by Maya Ortega so they could map a toxic solvent plume moving toward a municipal well field. The occupation was a physical taking of part of the parcel, but the work sharply reduced uncertainty about the plume and made lenders willing to finance the remainder of the site again.

If Maya proves the occupied strips had some market value, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. When only part of property is taken, compensation is reduced by direct, special benefits conferred on the remainder. The court held federal law governs that offset question, and if the special benefits exceed the value of the part taken, net compensation is zero. Benefits are not disqualified merely because nearby lands may also benefit. (Derived from Hendler v. United States (n.d.).)