2013 CO 54
Colo.2013Background
- In 1901 Great Western Railway obtained easements (by deed or condemnation) across parcels in Weld County (the Eaton Subdivision); the railroad later sought abandonment and the STB issued a NITU for interim trail use under the Rails‑to‑Trails Act.
- Plaintiffs are owners of parcels abutting the former railroad right‑of‑way who sued in the Court of Federal Claims claiming a Fifth Amendment taking when the right‑of‑way was rail‑banked for trail use.
- The takings claim requires plaintiffs to prove they held a vested property interest in the underlying fee at the time of the alleged taking.
- Plaintiffs produced the railroad’s original "source deeds" and their own deeds for the abutting parcels but did not produce complete chains of title linking their title to the original fee owner.
- Plaintiffs relied on Colorado’s common‑law centerline presumption (ownership of abutting land presumptively carries title to the centerline) to assert they own to the centerline; the United States argued the presumption does not arise absent proof that the grantor owned the underlying fee.
- The Colorado Supreme Court accepted a certified question from the Court of Federal Claims and held the centerline presumption applies to railroad rights‑of‑way but only when the adjacent landowner adduces evidence tracing title to a grantor who owned the underlying fee; mere adjacency is insufficient to establish fee ownership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Colorado law presume that abutting landowners own the underlying fee to the centerline of an abandoned railroad right‑of‑way? | Adjacency gives rise to the centerline presumption; the U.S. must rebut it. | The presumption is a rule of conveyance that applies only if plaintiff can show title derives from the owner of the underlying fee. | The centerline presumption applies to railroad rights‑of‑way but only after the adjacent owner produces evidence that their title derives from someone who owned the underlying fee; answered NO to the certified question (no presumption from mere adjacency). |
| Who bears burden to prove ownership for a takings claim? | Plaintiffs say presumption shifts burden to government. | United States says plaintiffs must prove vested ownership. | Plaintiffs must prove ownership; centerline presumption does not relieve them of proving a chain to a grantor who held the fee. |
| Is the centerline presumption meant to effectuate grantor intent or public policy? | Plaintiffs rely on presumption broadly. | U.S. emphasizes conveyance rule tied to grantor’s actual interest. | Court treats presumption as a rule of conveyance to effectuate grantor intent and limits it by grantor’s ownership. |
| Does Colorado statute on vacated roadways create analogous rule for railroads? | Plaintiffs point to vesting statute for vacated roadways. | United States says statute applies only to roadways, not railroads. | Statute inapplicable; no similar legislative rule exists for railroad abandonments in Colorado. |
Key Cases Cited
- Preseault v. I.C.C., 494 U.S. 1 (1990) (Rails‑to‑Trails Act context; railbanking purpose and takings framework)
- Olin v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 25 Colo. 177, 53 P. 454 (1898) (Colorado adoption of the centerline presumption as rule of conveyance)
- Overland Mach. Co. v. Alpenfels, 30 Colo. 163, 69 P. 574 (1902) (clarifies presumption is one of construction and applies only if grantor owned underlying fee)
- Roeder Co. v. Burlington N., Inc., 105 Wash.2d 567, 716 P.2d 855 (1986) (holds centerline presumption inapplicable where adjoining owner does not trace title to owner of right‑of‑way)
- Cienega Gardens v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (plaintiff’s burden to prove ownership of vested property interest in takings claims)