The research conducted by this Court has found only three cases which have considered the question of whether just compensation requires the awarding of simple interest or compound interest. See, United States v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 51 F. Supp. 749 (E.D.Wash. 1943), United States v. 164.25 Acres of Land, 159 F. Supp. 728 (D.N.H. 1957) and United States v. Blankinship, 431 F. Supp. 403 (D.Or. 1977) on remand 543 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1976). In Northern Pacific and Blankinship the courts concluded that compound interest was not an impermissible grant of "interest on interest" but was necessary to provide the full equivalent of the value of just compensation if it had been paid contemporaneously with the taking.
Therefore, they have a proper claim for interest on these funds which have been withheld from them during this time period. Such an award is not an impermissible grant of "interest on interest," but is simply an award of interest on the "just compensation" improperly withheld from the landowners since October, 1975. United States v. 164.25 Acres of Land, 159 F.Supp. 728 (D.N.H.1957); United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 51 F.Supp. 749 (E.D.Wash.1943). Accordingly, Double-O-Bar is entitled to judgment in an amount equal to 1.75% on the deficiency of $450,596.75 from May 30, 1973, until the date of payment in October, 1975, plus 6% on that amount from that date in October, 1975, to the date of payment.
The addition of interest is an attempt by Congress to substitute additional compensation because the taking and corresponding just compensation do not occur simultaneously. United States v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 51 F. Supp. 749 (D.C. 1943); United States v. Certain Land in City of St. Louis, Mo., 41 F. Supp. 809 (D.C. 1941). The Government cites Luckenbach Steamship Company, Inc., v. United States, 272 U.S. 533, 47 S.Ct. 186, 71 L.Ed. 394 (1926), as the leading case holding that interest does not accrue to one where unwarranted delays are attributable to him.
Atlantic Coast Line v. U.S. 5 Cir., 1943, 132 F.2d 959, 962. Additionally, interest in an additional sum is allowed from the date of the deposit of the deficiency, March 16, 1956, to the date of final payment, on the interest which had accumulated to March 16. United States v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., D.C., 51 F. Supp. 749. I am not impressed with the Government's contention that as an offset to the interest allowable, rent should be assessed against the defendant during the time that it was permitted to remain in occupancy after the Declaration of Taking. While it is true that, under section 258a, the Court is empowered to make such orders respecting "rents" as shall be just and equitable, I am of the view that the relationship then existing was not that of landlord and tenant.
Several jurisdictions have allowed the imposition of compound interest. United States v. 429.59 Acres, 612 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Blankenship, 543 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v. 319.49 Acres, 508 F. Supp. 288 (W.D. Okla. 1981); United States v. 164.25 Acres, 159 F. Supp. 728 (D.N.H. 1957); United States v. Northern Pacific R.R. Co., 51 F. Supp. 749 (E.D. Wash. 1943). In DeBruhl, this Court stated that "[i]n the absence of statutory authority, compound interest should not be awarded."
Schneider v. Cnty. of San Diego, 285 F.3d 784, 792 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. 50.50 Acres of Land, 931 F.2d 1349, 1355 (9th Cir. 1991)). Merceri cites United States v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 51 F.Supp. 749, 749-50 (E.D. Wash. 1943), in which the court allowed compound interest at 6 percent, but the court did not explain the reason for its selection of that rate, and it is no longer consistent with Court of Claims decisions.
”United States v. 319.46 Acres of Land, 508 F.Supp. 288, 291 (W.D.Okla.1981). See also United States v. Blankinship, 543 F.2d 1272, 1274 (9th Cir.1976); United States v. 429.59 Acres of Land, 612 F.2d 459, 465 (9th Cir.1980); Dynamics Corp. of America v. United States, 766 F.2d 518, 520 (Fed.Cir.1985); United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 51 F.Supp. 749, 750 (E.D.Wash.1943); United States v. 164.25 Acres of Land, 159 F.Supp. 728, 730 (D.N.H.1957); Bowles v. United States, 31 Fed.Cl. 37, 40 (1994); Lea Co. v. North Carolina Bd. of Transp., 317 N.C. 254, 264, 345 S.E.2d 355 (1986); 520 E. 81st St. Assocs. v. State, 19 A.D.3d 24, 30–31, 799 N.Y.S.2d 1 (N.Y.2005). The district's arguments in favor of simple interest are unavailing.
That "the owner is entitled to interest thereon sufficient to ensure that he is placed in as good a position pecuniarily as he would have occupied if the payment had coincided with the appropriation" was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States ( 467 US 1, 10). Many federal courts have recognized that the entitlement to interest on the value of the property may entail compound interest, beginning with United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. ( 51 F Supp 749 [ED Wash 1943]). These cases acknowledge that in certain instances involving a long delay before compensation, only compound interest will justly compensate a property owner.
1981). They were U.S. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 51 F. Supp. 749 (E.D. Wash. 1943); U.S. v. 164.25 Acres of Land, 159 F. Supp. 728 (D.N.H. 1957); and U.S. v. Blankinship, 431 F. Supp. 403 (D.Or. 1977) (Later rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 543 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1976)). In U.S. v. 319.46 Acres of Land, the court's analysis resulted in a decision to award compound interest to the condemnee.