Boyer v. United States
123 Fed. Cl. 430
| Fed. Cl. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs own parcels adjacent to a 17.86-mile rail corridor in Benton County, Oregon; the STB issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) in 2011 allowing railbanking and interim trail use, and a trail use agreement was later reached.
- Plaintiffs sued in the Court of Federal Claims alleging the NITU effected a Fifth Amendment taking by depriving them of unencumbered use of the underlying fee.
- The government moved for partial summary judgment on multiple grounds: some plaintiffs never owned the corridor because deeds “excepted” the strip; some deeds conveyed fee simple to the railroad; and some easements (if any) were not abandoned before the NITU.
- The disputed historical deeds (early 1900s) used varying language: some titled “right of way,” many used phrases like “over and across” or “strip of land,” few limited use expressly to railroad purposes, and consideration amounts varied.
- The court applied Oregon property-law tests (Bernards/Bouche factors) and the Federal Circuit’s three-part takings framework (ownership, scope, abandonment) derived from Preseault and progeny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of “excepted” language in deeds (who owns underlying fee) | “Excepted” means parcel is conveyed subject to railroad easement; adjacent owners still hold the fee | "Excepted" removes the strip from grantee’s conveyance so fee belongs to railroad or prior owner | Court: “excepted” construed as "subject to" the railroad easement; Excepted Plaintiffs retain underlying fee |
| Whether specific deeds conveyed fee simple or only an easement | Deeds titled or describing a “right of way” or using “over and across” convey only easements | Some deeds that convey strips/parcels without explicit limitation (and with substantial consideration) conveyed fee simple | Court: applied Bernards/Bouche factors—many deeds (including those titled “right of way” or using "over and across," nominal consideration, fencing, imprecision) conveyed easements; a subset with substantial consideration and lacking right-of-way indicia conveyed fee |
| Scope of easements: does easement encompass recreational trail use authorized by NITU | Historic railroad easements do not encompass public recreational/trail use; rail and pedestrian/cyclist uses are incompatible under Oregon law | Railroad easements are broad; analogous public-right-of-way cases permit similar new uses (e.g., cycling); easement language can be broad enough to include trail use | Court: easements at issue are not broad enough to include trail use; plaintiffs entitled to summary judgment on scope for identified easement deeds |
| Relevance of abandonment before NITU issuance | Abandonment matters only if easement could encompass trail use; court should decide scope first | Abandonment should be decided first—if easement not abandoned, no taking regardless of NITU | Court: follows Federal Circuit sequence—decides ownership and scope first; did not reach abandonment for easement deeds after finding scope did not include trail use |
Key Cases Cited
- Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 494 U.S. 1 (1990) (establishes that authorizing trail use can be a taking requiring just compensation)
- Ellamae Phillips Co. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (sets three-part takings inquiry: ownership, scope, abandonment)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (addresses state-law reversionary interests and takings analysis)
- Bernards v. Link, 248 P.2d 341 (Or. 1952) (factors for determining whether a railroad conveyance was an easement or fee)
- Bouche v. Wagner, 293 P.2d 203 (Or. 1956) (further development of factors distinguishing easement from fee)
- Tri-Cty. Metro. Transp. Dist. v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 985 P.2d 222 (Or. Ct. App. 1999) (interpreting "except" language in conveyance; distinguished on facts here)