DUANE OMAR BURNETT v. United States
1:16-cv-00995
Fed. Cl.Oct 9, 2018Background
- Plaintiffs are Missouri landowners alleging a Fifth Amendment taking of reversionary interests after the Surface Transportation Board issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) for the Rock Island rail corridor.
- The corridor is ~144.3 miles across central Missouri; the dispute concerns whether the railroad (Missouri Central Railroad Co., MCRR) held fee simple title or only easements in the strips adjacent to plaintiffs’ parcels when the NITU issued.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability (they own fee simple or the easements were limited to railroad use); the United States cross-moved on standing and title issues.
- Court applied Missouri property/deed law (intent, grant language, consideration, habendum) and the Federal Circuit’s three-part rails-to-trails takings analysis (fee vs. easement; scope of easement; whether easement terminated pre-taking).
- The court found MCRR holds fee simple title for eight claims, the Misners (one claim) did not own land adjacent to the corridor covered by the NITU, and that nine remaining claims involved easements broad enough to include recreational trail use.
- Result: Plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment denied; government’s cross-motion granted on standing and title; court did not decide whether the taking (temporary vs. permanent) occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether MCRR owned fee simple or only easements for specific parcels | Peppard/Fitzgerald deeds conveyed only easements (insufficient consideration; voluntary grants) | Granting/habendum language and stated consideration convey fee simple to railroad | For claims 1,10,13a/b,19,22a/b,23 court held MCRR owns fee simple |
| 2. Whether Wayne & Gloria Misner owned land adjacent to corridor covered by NITU | Misners’ parcel is adjacent to corridor and thus within NITU coverage | MCRR did not own the adjacent ICC Valuation Parcel 13 at NITU time; parcel was quitclaimed earlier and not conveyed to MCRR | Misners did not own land adjacent to the NITU corridor; claim dismissed for lack of standing |
| 3. For remaining parcels, whether easements were limited to railroad use or broad enough to include trail/railbanking | Deeds should be read as limited to railroad purposes; Missouri law presumes limitation absent express broader grant | Deeds’ grant/habendum language and property descriptions indicate broad easements; voluntary-grant statute does not automatically limit scope | For claims 2,3,5,6,7,11,17a,20,21 court held easements are broad enough to encompass trail use |
| 4. Whether court can decide if NITU caused a temporary or permanent taking now | Plaintiffs: issuance of NITU constitutes a permanent taking | Gov’t: cannot decide taking yet because no trail-use agreement or abandonment consummated | Court did not decide whether a taking occurred (left for later) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311 (Supreme Court) (STB/ICC jurisdiction over rail construction, operation, abandonment)
- Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 494 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court) (rails-to-trails statutory framework; railbanking background)
- Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir.) (rails-to-trails three-part takings analysis)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir.) (railbanking/CITU/NITU consequences and takings principles)
- Ellamae Phillips Co. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir.) (applying three-part test and guiding ownership/scope analysis)
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir.) (takings when NITU/CITU issues affect reversionary interests)
- Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir.) (accrual of takings claim upon NITU issuance)
- Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir.) (only persons with valid property interest at time of taking entitled to compensation)