Opinion ID: 622804
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Government’s Eminent Domain Claim

Text: [5] An eminent domain claim can be used by the Government to quiet title to its interest in a property, even if that interest is in a leasehold rather than fee. United States v. 93.970 Acres of Land, 360 U.S. 328, 329 (1959). The Government does not waive any interest it acquired through the lease UNITED STATES v. POLAR STAR 1797 renewal by subsequently filing a claim in eminent domain, or by filing a declaration of taking. United States v. 60.22 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Klickitat Cnty., Wash., 638 F.2d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1980). [6] The Government validly renewed the Project Lease for a year on May 18, 2006. Therefore, it possessed all that it sought in its condemnation suit—a five-month leasehold in the houses.1 Because the Government had previously acquired all the rights it sought to condemn, it took nothing through eminent domain. Id. There was no taking, and therefore no just compensation for an alleged taking was due. Polar Star argues that the Government effected a de facto taking of the entire interest in the houses by virtue of its eminent domain complaint. However, the district court lacks jurisdiction to expand the scope of the eminent domain action beyond that expressed in the declaration of taking, and it may not entertain a counterclaim in an eminent domain action. See United States v. 3,317.39 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Jefferson Cnty., Ark., 443 F.2d 104, 106 (8th Cir. 1971). Polar Star may be “entitled to recover damages for the actual taking of property which is not included in the declaration of taking, but the award may not be made in a condemnation suit under the theory of damages to the remainder. This must be done in a separate proceeding under the Tucker Act in the Court of Claims.” Id. E. District Court’s Jurisdiction to Determine the Renewal Rent The district court ruled that based on Park Place, it lacked jurisdiction to consider the question of rent and dismissed the case. Polar Star contends that the district court erred because 1 Indeed, the Government possessed more than it sought to condemn, as it had already effectively renewed the leasehold for a full year, not just the five months it sought in its condemnation suit. 1798 UNITED STATES v. POLAR STAR while Park Place holds that affirmative claims against the Government must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims, Polar Star had not made a claim for relief against the Government. Rather, Polar Star argues that the district court has jurisdiction to determine what the amount of rent is, but acknowledges that if the Government should then fail to pay that rent, Polar Star would have to bring a claim in the Court of Federal Claims. The district court was certainly correct that, if Polar Star were making a claim against the Government for rent under the lease, jurisdiction would lie only in the Court of Federal Claims. Park Place, 563 F.3d at 933 (“the Tucker Act conditions the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity over contract-based claims seeking more than $10,000 on jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims”). However, as Polar Star vehemently insists, it has not made an affirmative claim asking the district court to determine the amount of renewal rent. Nonetheless, Polar Star contends that once the district court ruled that the Government had renewed the Project Lease, as a “necessary corollary” it was required to take the next step and determine the amount of rent under the renewal. Polar Star cites no authority imposing such a duty on the district court. The Government’s eventual position in its eminent domain action was that since it had renewed the Project Lease for a full year by providing notice of the renewal in accordance with the terms of the lease, it already possessed the interest which it sought to condemn. We have held that the Government does not waive an interest it acquired through a lease renewal by filing a claim in eminent domain or by filing a declaration of taking. 60.22 Acres, 638 F.2d at 1178. [7] The district court had to decide the question of whether the lease was, in fact, renewed in order to rule on the Government’s eminent domain suit. Once it determined the lease was renewed, the court did not need to decide any further issues UNITED STATES v. POLAR STAR 1799 regarding the Project Lease. Since the Government already possessed all that it sought to condemn, the district court correctly ruled there was no taking. [8] Polar Star cannot demand a ruling on an action it chose not to file; indeed, here this would amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion by the district court. In other words, because the district court was not required to decide the rent question since that issue was not necessary to rule on the Government’s eminent domain complaint, absent a proper affirmative pleading from one of the parties requesting a determination of the amount of rent, it lacked any basis for doing so. See United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 887 F.2d 207, 214 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[C]ourts should not render advisory opinions upon issues which are not pressed before the court, precisely framed and necessary for decision.”).