The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denying requests for monetary relief including post-judgment interest, appellate expenses, and attorney's fees in *Haggart v. United States*. The nonprecedential decision, filed Jan. 7, 2026, represents the latest development in a complex takings case that has been litigated for more than 15 years.
The case involves Denise L. Woodley, who along with her husband Gordon A. Woodley, was part of a class action settlement with the federal government regarding compensation for property takings. Despite reaching a settlement agreement that awarded them compensation, the Woodleys subsequently filed motions seeking additional attorney's fees and expenses at the Court of Federal Claims.
The Federal Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Sharon Prost, Raymond Taranto, and Jimmie Hughes, issued the brief opinion affirming the lower court's denial of these requests. Judge Prost wrote the opinion for the court.
The underlying litigation traces back to 2009, when the case was originally filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under case number 1:09-cv-00103-CFL before Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow. The Federal Circuit had previously issued a decision in the matter in 2022, detailed in *Haggart v. United States*, 38 F.4th 164 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
According to court documents, the Woodleys reached a settlement agreement with the government that provided compensation for the taking of their property. However, they later sought additional monetary relief through motions for attorney's fees and expenses filed with the Court of Federal Claims.
The Court of Federal Claims rejected these requests in a 2023 decision reported as *Haggart v. United States*, 168 Fed. Cl. 148 (2023). Woodley then appealed that denial to the Federal Circuit, seeking reversal of the lower court's decision.
In the appeal, Woodley was represented by Gordon Arthur Woodley of Bellevue, Washington, who argued on her behalf. The United States was represented by Allen M. Brabender from the Appellate Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Todd Kim also represented the government in the matter.
The Federal Circuit's decision to affirm the lower court ruling means that Woodley will not recover the post-judgment interest, appellate expenses, or attorney's fees she sought. The court's opinion was designated as nonprecedential, meaning it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases, though it may be referenced for its persuasive value.
The involvement of the Environment and Natural Resources Division suggests the underlying case likely involved environmental or natural resources issues, which frequently give rise to takings claims when government regulations or actions affect private property rights. Takings cases under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause require the government to provide just compensation when private property is taken for public use.
The lengthy litigation timeline reflects the complexity often inherent in takings cases, which can involve disputed valuations, regulatory interpretations, and constitutional questions about when government action rises to the level of a compensable taking. The fact that the parties reached a settlement agreement but continued to litigate over fees and expenses illustrates how post-judgment disputes can extend litigation well beyond the resolution of underlying claims.
For practitioners in takings law, the case serves as a reminder that successful resolution of the underlying takings claim does not guarantee recovery of attorney's fees and related expenses. Fee-shifting provisions and the standards for recovering litigation costs remain separate issues that must be established through applicable statutes or court rules.
The Federal Circuit's jurisdiction over this appeal stems from the specialized appellate jurisdiction it exercises over cases from the Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over most monetary claims against the United States exceeding $10,000, including takings claims.
While the decision provides limited detail due to its nonprecedential status and brief nature, it represents a definitive conclusion to Woodley's efforts to obtain additional monetary relief beyond the original settlement compensation. The affirmance of the lower court's decision leaves the original settlement as the final resolution of the parties' dispute over compensation for the property taking.
The case highlights the ongoing complexity of federal takings litigation and the challenges plaintiffs face in recovering attorney's fees and expenses even after achieving favorable outcomes on their underlying claims. For government defendants, the decision provides support for resisting post-judgment fee applications in similar takings cases.