106 Fed. Cl. 289
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are Kansas real property owners asserting Fifth Amendment takings claims related to a rail corridor converted to interim trail use under the Trails Act amendments.
- The Court previously held UP abandoned the right-of-way, so the easement would have reverted to Plaintiffs in fee simple absent the NITU.
- The STB issued a NITU in 2003, blocking reversion and triggering a taking requiring just compensation.
- The parties exchanged appraisals and cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the method to calculate just compensation.
- The court granted Plaintiffs’ method and denied Government’s on the measurement, with fencing costs remaining an unresolved factual issue.
- The Court concluded the proper measure is the difference between the land’s value in fee simple and value burdened by a perpetual trail use easement, considering the railbanking effect of the Trails Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper measure of just compensation | Nordhus: difference in value before and after taking | United States: difference between land with railroad easement and land with trail/reversion potential | Plaintiffs' method is correct: measure as difference between fee simple value and value burdened by trail use easement |
| Whether fencing costs are compensable | Fencing needed to restrain livestock and protect public/private interests | Fencing costs not yet established as recoverable | Not resolved; needs further factual development and record evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Nordhus Family Trust v. United States, 98 Fed.Cl. 331 (2011) (liability decision; takings under Trails Act amendments)
- Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 494 U.S. 1 (1990) (trail use/abandonment framework; railbanking)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed.Cir.2004) (abandonment considerations and Trails Act interpretation)
- Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed.Cir.2006) (taking occurs when state-law reversion is blocked by Trails Act)
- Ellamae Phillips Co. v. United States, 99 Fed.Cl. 483 (2011) (trail use scope of easement; abandonment issue potentially unresolved)
- Longnecker Prop. v. United States, 105 Fed.Cl. 393 (2012) (considerations on abandonment/scop e of easement)
- Raulerson v. United States, 99 Fed.Cl. 9 (2011) (valuation framework under Trails Act)