101 Fed. Cl. 549
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege a Fifth Amendment taking arising from the conversion of a railroad right-of-way to a recreational trail under the Trails Act.
- Mid-Michigan Railroad sought abandonment authority; STB granted permission to negotiate a trail use agreement and to railbank the corridor.
- Trail use agreements were pursued with multiple operators (WMTGC, Friends of Fred) across southern and northern segments, with NITU extensions granted during negotiations.
- In the southern segment, deeds to abutting landowners convey an easement described as a right of way to build, maintain, and operate a railroad; the court examines scope of that easement.
- In the northern segment, plaintiffs claim a possible fee or prescriptive interest; val-maps indicate no deed, complicating ownership proof.
- The court applies Preseault II framework to determine whether the easements permit interim trail use and whether a taking occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of the easement for the southern segment | Easement limited to railroad purposes; trail use beyond scope. | Easement broad enough to include interim trail use and railbanking. | Easement limited to railroad purposes; trail use beyond scope. |
| Nature of railroad interest in the northern segment | Railroad acquired only a prescriptive easement (no deed). | Plaintiffs must prove title chain; val-maps insufficient to show prescriptive interest. | Railroad interest determined as prescriptive easement; not broader than railroad use. |
| Takings framework under Preseault II | Trail use outside scope constitutes a taking regardless of whether railbanking occurs. | Public-use policy and Michigan law support trail use within easement scope. | Trail use outside scope constitutes taking; compensable under Fifth Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Preseault v. United States (en banc) (Preseault II), 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (framework to determine takings in rails-to-trails: ownership, scope, and termination)
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (takings when state action converts railbed to trail and blocks state reversionary interests)
- Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (railbanking and NITU/CITU mechanics in Trails Act proceedings)
- Carmody-Lahti Real Estate, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 699 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2005) (easement scope limited to railroad purposes; manner of use evolves but remains railroad-focused)
- Garfield Petroleum Co. v. United States, 290 N.W.2d 833 (Mich. 1980) (prescriptive railroad easements tied to public-use concept must be limited to actual use)
- Toews v. United States, 376 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (distinct uses of easements (railroad vs recreational) create different burdens)
- NARPO v. STB, 158 F.3d 135 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (railbanking as interim use; STB authority and implications for takings)
- Amaliksen v. United States, 55 Fed.Cl. 167 (Fed. Cl. 2003) (val maps and deeds to prove railroad interest; caution against over-reliance on valuation maps)