Case Summary
Issue:
Whether the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a taking that the government claims is for economic development, when the evidence shows it is actually designed to give property to a favored private party for that party’s private purposes and enjoyment?
Plaintiff:
Artemio M. Ilagan and Carmelita Ilagan
Defendant:
Engracia Ungacta and Felix Ungacta; Government of Guam
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case History
Mr. Ilagan owns land on which he owns and operates an apartment building. His neighbors—the Ungactas—own an adjacent, residentially zoned lot. In 1981, the Ungacta property lacked access to a road. That same year, while Mr. Ungacta was Mayor of the City of Agana, the Ungactas appraised a part of Mr. Ilagan’s property that had access to a road and which was used to provide parking for tenants of the Ilagan apartment. Soon, the government condemned the appraised area, paying for it with compensation supplied by the Ungactas, and transferred it to the Ungactas.
The government justified the property transfer as an “economic development” measure under the “Agana Plan,” a post-World War II redevelopment plan enacted to reconfigure irregular lot lines in Agana. The Plan had been defunct for seven years prior to the 1981 Ilagan taking. When active, it did not contemplate a single lot taking and had never been used that way. No other lots were taken under purported authority of the Plan at the time of the Ilagan taking.
In the 30 years since then, the Plan has never been used to take any property. In June 2010, the Guam Superior Court held that an unconstitutional taking had occurred; however, in October 2011, the Guam Supreme Court reversed. That court applied a standard of “judicial deference” pursuant to Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), and held the taking served a valid public purpose. At the urging of the Real Parties in Interest Ungactas, the Government did not appeal. The Ilagans sought Supreme Court review in December 2012.