123 Fed. Cl. 186
Fed. Cl.2015Background
- Plaintiffs are owners of land abutting an Illinois railroad corridor (milepost 461.5–486.2) and sued the United States under the Fifth Amendment/National Trails System Act after the Surface Transportation Board issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) on Nov. 13, 2008.
- The corridor was originally conveyed to predecessor railroads (Peoria & Farmington, Burlington Monmouth & Illinois River, Iowa Central); Union Pacific is successor-in-interest.
- Plaintiffs identified 51 parcels; the cross-motions addressed 21 parcels that fall into five groups: (a) 13 conveyed by identical “Right of Way” instruments, (b) 2 conveyed “for railroad purposes,” (c) 3 with no conveyance documents produced by plaintiffs, (d) 1 acquired by condemnation, and (e) 2 parcels (parcel 29 and an Illinois Rte. 116 parcel) that plaintiffs held in fee simple with the railroad holding only easements.
- The court applied Illinois property law and the Federal Circuit three-step rails-to-trails test: (1) who owned the land (fee vs. easement), (2) whether an easement’s terms permit trail use, and (3) whether any easement had terminated before the NITU.
- Court found the 13 “Right of Way” deeds and the 2 “for railroad purposes” deeds conveyed fee simple to the railroad under Illinois law; plaintiffs produced no deeds for 3 parcels (so failed to meet burden); one condemned parcel raised disputed facts; and for parcel 29 and the Rte. 116 parcel plaintiffs held fee simple while railroad held only easements whose scope was exceeded by the NITU.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Nature of interest in parcels conveyed by identical “Right of Way” instruments | Barlow: language (e.g., “right-of-way,” “across”) shows only an easement | U.S.: instrument’s use of “convey” and promise to convey in fee simple creates fee simple title | Held: instruments convey fee simple; summary judgment for defendant on these 13 parcels |
| 2. Nature of interest in parcels conveyed “for railroad purposes” | Barlow: “for railroad purposes” limits grant to easement | U.S.: phrase expresses purpose, does not defeat presumption of fee simple when deed says “convey” | Held: conveyed in fee simple; summary judgment for defendant on these 2 parcels |
| 3. Parcels with no conveyance documents and burden of proof | Barlow: ICC maps and related records suffice to show railroad interest | U.S.: plaintiffs must prove cognizable property interests; maps alone are insufficient | Held: plaintiffs failed to meet burden for 3 parcels (summary judgment for defendant) |
| 4. Parcels where railroad held only an easement (parcel 29 & Rte.116) — scope/exceeding and nature of taking | Barlow: NITU exceeded easement and effected a taking (permanent if railbanking agreement exists; temporary if NITU expired) | U.S.: concedes NITU exceeded easements; disputes only characterization until NITU/railbanking status known | Held: easement scope exceeded; question whether taking is temporary or permanent held in abeyance pending status of NITU/railbanking; parcel acquired by condemnation (parcel 26) denied summary judgment for both sides due to disputed historical facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 494 U.S. 1 (1990) (establishes rails-to-trails takings framework and context for railbanking).
- Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (articulates three-part test for rails-to-trails takings).
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discusses NITU/CITU effects and temporary vs. permanent takings).
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (treats NITU issuance as triggering accrual of takings claim).
- Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explains STB’s role and that NITU issuance can give rise to takings claim).