99 Fed. Cl. 483
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Plaintiff alleged that rail-right-of-way conversion to a biking/hiking trail was a Fifth Amendment taking.
- The Grand Valley Railway granted a right of way in 1886 under the 1875 Act; patent deed issued in 1923 to Diemoz; plaintiff is successor to Diemoz and D&RGW is successor to Grand Valley.
- Trails Act authorized railbanking to preserve unused rights of way and use them as recreational trails, with interim trail use not treated as abandonment.
- Defendant rail line was railbanked by RFRHA in 1998 and later by RFTA as interim trail user; NITU issued; potential trail sponsor filed necessary notices.
- Previous decisions held Hash v. United States established takings for category 1 landowners when 1875 Act rights of way were converted to trails; the Federal Circuit later remanded to assess scope of easement and abandonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of the 1875 Act easement | Hash supports broad easement to include trail use | Trail use not within railroad purpose scope | Trail use outside the easement scope |
| Whether abandonment was shown | Abandonment established by conversion to trail | Abandonment not clearly shown due to railbanking | Abandonment not necessary to resolve; moot after scope ruling |
| Railbanking effect on scope | Railbanking could revive railroad use | Railbanking does not convert to railroad use | Railbanking does not convert to railroad use; scope remains limited to railroad purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308 (Fed.Cir.2005) (abandonment and category 1 landowner interests under 1875 Act)
- Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1542 (Fed.Cir.1996) (railbanking and use of rights of way; scope limited to railroad purposes)
- Toews v. United States, 376 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir.2004) (recreational trails not railroad use; burden on future rail service not enough)
- Nordhus Family Trust v. United States, 98 Fed.Cl. 331 (2011) (removal of tracks to establish recreational trails not consistent with railroad purpose)
- Macy Elevator, Inc. v. United States, 97 Fed.Cl. 708 (2011) (railbanking vs. railroad use; public trail not a railroad purpose)