Opinion ID: 215734
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Definition of Prevailing Party in Eminent Domain Proceedings

Text: Congress has defined the following mathematical formula for determining whether a landowner who obtained the judgment in eminent domain proceedings is a prevailing party: [A] prevailing party, in the case of eminent domain proceedings, means a party who obtains a final judgment (other than by settlement), exclusive of interest, the amount of which is at least as close to the highest valuation of the property involved that is attested to at trial on behalf of the property owner as it is to the highest valuation of the property involved that is attested to at trial on behalf of the Government[.] § 2412(d)(2)(H). Congress added this subparagraph to EAJA in 1985 to clarify that EAJA does apply to eminent domain proceedings (an issue over which the circuits had split) and to provide the definition for prevailing party for eminent domain proceedings. Congress explained its reasons for adding subparagraph (d)(2)(H) to EAJA in the House Report, which clearly shows Congress' intent that a district court make its decision about prevailing party status in an eminent domain proceeding based on the testimony at trial: Under this amendment, a party would be regarded as a prevailing party when the amount it is awarded by the court lies at least halfway between the highest amount testified to on behalf of the government and the highest amount testified to on behalf of the opposing party. In other words, the prevailing party is the one whose testimony in court is closer to the award. If the award is exactly in the middle, it gives the benefit to the property owner. This amendment applies only to values testified to in court. H.R. Rep. 99-120, at 18, 1985 U.S.C.C.A.N. 132, at 147 (all caps style omitted) (emphasis added). Congress also explained that its definition of prevailing party provided an incentive for the parties to an eminent domain proceeding to be reasonable in their valuations: The Committee expects that this amendment will terminate the uncertainty which currently exists due to continuing litigation over who is the prevailing party in condemnation actions. The committee also hopes that the amendment will result in bringing the government and the property owner closer together in their land valuations, since they would both have the extra incentive of being determined the prevailing party under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Id. Under the definition set out in § 2412(d)(2)(H), appellants must meet two requirements to qualify as the prevailing party. First, they must have obtained the judgment. They did obtain the judgment, see Aplt.App., Vol. 2, at 410, so they have met the first requirement. The second requirement, however, is that their highest valuation of the property attested to at trial must be at least as close to the judgment they obtained as the government's highest valuation attested to at trial[.] See § 2412(d)(2)(H). The district court held that its $3.8 million judgment in favor of appellants was closer to the highest valuation testified to by the government's expert, $186,500, than to the highest valuation testified to by appellants' expert, $33 million, leading to the court's conclusion that appellants were not the prevailing party and were not entitled to attorney's fees under EAJA. Aplt. App., Vol. 2, at 426-29. On appeal, appellants do not seriously dispute that the highest valuation in their expert's testimony was $30.6 million at the first hearing and $33 million at the second hearing. They argue, rather, that they should not be bound by the highest valuations in the evidence they presented at trial because they moved to adopt the $6.1 million valuation proposed by the special commission the parties had agreed to appoint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 71.1(h) for the very purpose of determining the value of their property. Understanding appellants' arguments requires a review of the procedural history, which follows.