Anna F. Nordhus Family Trust v. United States
98 Fed. Cl. 331
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Kansas real property owners claim fee simple interests subject to railroad easements along an 8.13-mile corridor north of Marysville, Kansas; Fifth Amendment takings claims joined with state-law questions.
- Union Pacific imposed an abandonment proceeding for the Marysville-to-Marietta corridor, with a STB Notice of Exemption filed October 29, 2003 and a December 15, 2003 NITU issued to railbank the line.
- Railbanking allows interim trail use under the Trails Act; title to operating right-of-way is reversionary unless constrained by law or agreement.
- Union Pacific conveyed its easement interests to Marshall County Connection, Inc. via quit claim in December 2005; UP posted that it had discontinued service in 2005.
- Nebraska Trails Foundation requested railbanking and assumed financial responsibility; current owner holds the rights to the easement and the land.
- Court granted Plaintiffs’ summary judgment on liability, finding the NITU blocked reversion and the current interim uses do not constitute rail operations under Kansas law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the NITU constitutes a Fifth Amendment taking | Plaintiffs—Baker et al.—argue NITU blocks reversion, amounting to a taking | UP contends railbanking preserves a future railroad purpose within the easement | Yes; NITU effects a taking by blocking reversion |
| Whether UP abandoned its rights in the easements | Abandonment occurred when UP ceased rail service and conveyed rights to others | UP's actions were not clear abandonment under state law until later transfers | UP effectively abandoned; rights transferred to Marshall County Connection, Inc. |
| Whether railbanking can be considered a railroad purpose under Kansas law | Railbanking preserves future rail use within the easement | Railbanking is a permissible railroad purpose under state law | No; railbanking does not satisfy railroad purpose as to this case under Kansas law |
| Scope and effect of Kansas easement law on reversion | Railroad easement would revert absent Trails Act; state law governs scope | Trails Act overrides state-law reversion concerns | Easement extinguished by abandonment; reversion blocked by Trails Act, constituting a taking |
Key Cases Cited
- Preseault v. United States, 494 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (taking depends on nature of state-created interests and burden by federal action)
- Preseault II v. ICC, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed.Cir. 1996) (trail use not within railroad purposes; focus on state-law scope of easement)
- Glosemeyer v. United States, 45 Fed.Cl. 771 (Fed.Cl. 2000) (abandonment by non-use plus conduct indicating intent to abandon; Missouri/Kansas context cited)
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (taking when federal action converts railroad easement to recreational trail outside scope of easement)
- Ellamae Phillips Co. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (takings when federal action affects state-defined property rights)
- Toews v. United States, 376 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (recreational trail use not railroad purpose; limits on railbanking value)