Opinion ID: 1189865
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Apportionment of Just Compensation

Text: Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in apportioning the total compensation by accepting at face value the ownership information provided by the government. See United States v. 1.377 Acres of Land, 352 F.3d 1259, 1269 (9th Cir.2003) ([T]he apportionment is left to either the discretion of the court, or the allocation agreed upon by the parties in a contract.). The `undivided fee rule' essentially operates by permitting the governmental authority to condemn property by providing just compensation, then allowing the respective interest holders to apportion the award among themselves, either by contract or judicial intervention. Id. In the absence of a contractual agreement among the property owners, it was proper for the district court to apportion the total amount of compensation by judicial intervention. Id. Nor do we find an abuse of discretion in the district court's deference to the ownership information provided by the government where, as here: (1) no defendant objected to the court's apportionment or presented conflicting ownership data, and (2) the court has provided an opportunity for unknown fractional owners to obtain their share of the award at a later time.