Burgess v. United States
109 Fed. Cl. 223
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are Iowa landowners claiming takings under the Trails Act due to STB-issued NITU affecting a 28.61-mile rail corridor through Franklin and Butler Counties.
- Railroad corridor originated in the 1870s via conveyances by Iowa Pacific and successors, often using 100-foot-wide right-of-way deeds.
- Union Pacific later became successor; in 2003 UP sought to abandon the eastern segment; STB issued a NITU and interim trail-use agreement followed by 2008 notifications.
- Class certified for 148 parcels; plaintiffs and defendant cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability as to those parcels.
- The court issued a split decision: liability for some parcels, no liability for others, and remaining parcels with genuine issues of material fact.
- Appendix A summarizes the parcel-by-parcel determinations and the trial will develop facts for remaining disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of land interest conveyed by right-of-way deeds | Plaintiffs: deeds conveyed only easements for railroad use | Railroad deeds purportedly granted broader rights | Deeds conveyed easements limited to railroad purposes |
| Effect of later depot/relocation conveyances and SURA | Second conveyances potentially reserved reversions or rights | SURA extinguished reversions for pre-1965 deeds not claimed | Second conveyances transferred fee interests; SURA extinguished reversions; reversions not cognizable |
| Trail use not within railroad purposes | Trail use exceeds railroad purposes; takings occurred | NITU authorization aligns with railroad purposes including railbanking | Trail use is outside the original railroad-purposes easements; takings liability established for affected parcels |
| Disputes as to adjoinment and dedication of alley | Alley may be public land via dedication | Dedication requires acceptance; genuine issues of fact for trial | Genuine issues of material fact as to alley dedication preclude law ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed.Cir.1996) (threshold ownership question—easement vs. fee simple governs takings")
- Lowers v. United States, 663 N.W.2d 407 (Iowa 2003) (SURA extinguished pre-1945 reversions not asserted by 1966; bar to asserting reversions; vested fee simple)
- Macerich Real Estate Co. v. City of Ames, 433 N.W.2d 726 (Iowa 1988) (easement scope and railroad-purposes limitations)
- Keokuk County v. Reinier, 288 N.W. 676 (Iowa 1939) (liberal construction to effectuate conveyance when taken under compulsion)
- McKinley v. Waterloo R.R. Co., 368 N.W.2d 131 (Iowa 1985) (railroad easements and railroad purposes under state law)
- Toews v. United States, 376 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir.2004) (differences between rail and trail uses; trail use not within railroad easement scope)