Duane Omar Burnett v. United States, 16-995

Background

Plaintiffs are landowners along the 144.3-mile Rock Island rail corridor in Missouri who sued the United States under the National Trails System Act claiming a Fifth Amendment taking after the Surface Transportation Board issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) on Feb. 25, 2015.
Plaintiffs allege their state-law reversionary interests in land under the railroad were taken when the NITU permitted potential railbanking/trail use.
Parties cross-moved for summary judgment on ownership, scope of conveyances (fee vs. easement; railroad-only vs. broader uses), standing (adjacency), and whether a taking has occurred.
The court applied Missouri property law to interpret nineteenth-/early-twentieth-century source deeds and the Federal Circuit three-step rails-to-trails takings framework (ownership; scope of easement; termination).
Court found MCRR holds fee simple title to parcels underlying claims 1, 10, 13a, 13b, 19, 22a, 22b, and 23; the Misners (claim 12) did not own land adjacent to the corridor covered by the NITU; and for nine remaining claims the source deeds conveyed broad easements that encompass recreational-trail/railbanking use.
Accordingly the court denied plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment on liability and granted the government’s cross-motion on standing and title; the court did not decide whether any taking (temporary or permanent) occurred or whether easements terminated prior to the NITU.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who owned the land at time of NITU (fee simple vs. easement)?	Deeds convey only easements or reverted to plaintiffs; therefore plaintiffs owned fee simple.	Source deeds (Peppard, Fitzgerald) convey fee simple to MCRR.	Court: Fee simple to MCRR for claims 1, 10, 13a/b, 19, 22a/b, 23; summary judgment for government on those claims.
Do Wayne & Gloria Misner own land adjacent to corridor covered by NITU?	Misners say their parcel is adjacent to corridor and thus subject to NITU.	Government shows the parcel (ICC Valuation Parcel 13) was quitclaimed to a third party and not owned by MCRR at NITU date.	Court: Misners did not own land adjacent to corridor covered by NITU; claim dismissed on summary judgment.
For remaining claims, are conveyed interests limited to railroad purposes or broad enough to include trail/railbanking?	Plaintiffs: Missouri law presumes railroad-purpose limitation absent explicit broader language.	Government: voluntary-grant deeds and their granting/habendum language convey broad easements; no limiting language; trail use encompassed.	Court: The applicable source deeds convey broad easements that encompass public recreational trail/railbanking use; summary judgment for government on those claims.
Has a taking (temporary or permanent) occurred and is that ripe now?	Plaintiffs: Issuance of NITU constitutes a permanent taking entitling them to relief.	Government: No trail use agreement or consummated abandonment; rights remain; takings not yet demonstrable.	Court: Did not decide takings issue—declined to reach whether temporary or permanent taking occurred.

Key Cases Cited

Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1 (1990) (rails-to-trails statute and railbanking background)
Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (rails-to-trails takings three-part analysis)
Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (railbanking/CITU/NITU effects on STB jurisdiction and interim trail use)
Ellamae Phillips Co. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (applying ownership/scope/termination framework)
Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (takings accrual in rails-to-trails context)
Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (STB consent/abandonment and takings accrual)