99 Fed. Cl. 133
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are landowners with fee simple interests abutting the Southbridge Secondary Track, previously subject to railroad easements.
- The Southbridge Secondary Track lies in Massachusetts and Connecticut and has been acquired by Massachusetts for use as a recreational trail under the Trails Act process.
- The STB issued a Certificate of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment (NITU) in 2003; abandonment and interim trail use were to be negotiated, with potential railbanking.
- Massachusetts acquired the right-of-way by eminent domain in 2004, with P&W releasing claims and the NITU preserving potential railroad reinstatement.
- Plaintiffs contend the NITU prevented extinction of their easements and amounted to a Fifth Amendment taking requiring compensation.
- Motions for summary judgment addressed title issues, liability on the takings claim, and the government’s liability for the trail use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs hold a reversionary fee simple following abandonment absent federal action | Swadia & Murphy hold fee simple; Massachusetts cannot extinguish without compensation | Massachusetts reserved rights allow acquisition for public use without compensation | No, Massachusetts cannot extinguish reversionary interests without compensation absent federal action. |
| Whether the original easements encompass a recreational trail | Easements broad enough to cover railways and related uses; expansion to trails is in-kind | Easements are broad and can cover various public transportation uses | Easements here are not broad enough to include a recreational trail; taking occurs. |
| Whether railbanking is a permissible railroad purpose within the easement scope | Railbanking could be a permissible use to preserve rail service | Railbanking is hypothetical and not a genuine railroad purpose | Railbanking is not a permissible railroad use for these easements. |
| Whether the NITU constitutes a taking given abandonment intent | NITU prevented extinguishment and imposed a new use, constituting a taking | NITU is not a taking if within scope or justified by public purpose | NITU caused a taking; government liable for compensation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (determines takings when easement scope conflicts with trails; scope crucial)
- Toews v. United States, 376 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (analyzes scope of railroad easement under state law; recreational trail not within scope)
- NARPO v. Surface Transp. Bd., 158 F.3d 135 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (agency authority over abandonment and state control interplay)
- Agostini v. North Adams Gaslight Co., 265 Mass. 70, 163 N.E. 745 (Mass. 1928) (early scope of railroad easements; rights limited to purpose)
- Hazen v. Boston & Maine R.R., 68 Mass. 574 (Mass. 1854) (easement scope and use within implied purposes)
- Nye v. Taunton Branch R.R. Co., 113 Mass. 277 (Mass. 1873) (abandonment extinguishes easement; reversion to soil owner)
- Proprietors of Locks & Canals on Merrimack River v. Nashua & Lowell R.R. Co., 104 Mass. 1 (Mass. 1870) (abandonment restores original owner’s rights)