965 F.3d 1338
Fed. Cir.2020Background
- Hardy owns parcels flanking a Central of Georgia Railway (CGA) line in Newton County, GA; title traces to late-19th/early-20th century deeds (standard MG&AR form deeds, one Lee deed) and some parcels conveyed for County Road 213.
- CGA filed a Surface Transportation Board (STB) notice of exemption on July 1, 2013 seeking abandonment of ~14.90 miles between mileposts E-65.80 and E-80.70; STB issued a NITU on August 19, 2013 to allow interim trail use negotiations.
- The original filings misidentified the precise location of milepost E-65.80 (parenthetical placed it at Route 229 in Newborn); CGA later submitted a corrected map and the STB modified the NITU in November 2016.
- Hardy sued in the Court of Federal Claims (May 2014), alleging the NITU effected Fifth Amendment takings by preventing abandonment and thereby forestalling state-law reversion; the trial court held the deeds conveyed easements and that the August 2013 NITU effected takings (including temporarily for parcels east of the actual milepost) and awarded damages.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the MG&AR form deeds, the Lee deed, and the County Road 213 deeds conveyed easements (so Hardy has compensable property interests), but vacated the trial court’s takings finding for parcels east of the actual milepost and remanded for further proceedings under the standard clarified in Caquelin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MG&AR form deeds and the Lee deed conveyed fee simple or an easement | Hardy: deeds created railroad rights-of-way easements; thus they hold a compensable property interest | Gov: deeds granted fee simple; no compensable interest to be taken | Held: deeds convey easements (affirmed) |
| Whether County Road 213 deeds conveyed fee simple or an easement | Hardy: deeds are right-of-way easements to the State (nominal consideration, reverter/drainage language) | Gov: deeds convey fee simple (analogous to Knight) | Held: County Road 213 deeds convey easements (affirmed) |
| Whether issuance of the August 2013 NITU effected takings of parcels east of the actual milepost E-65.80 | Hardy: NITU issuance forestalled abandonment and effected takings as of NITU date | Gov: erroneous NITU description was ministerial / railroad never intended to abandon east segment, so no taking for those parcels | Held: Court vacated trial-court finding of taking for parcels east of the actual milepost and remanded to determine, under Caquelin, whether the railroad would have abandoned the east segment absent the NITU (but affirmed easement holdings) |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (NITU issuance can forestall state-law reversion and effect a taking)
- Caquelin v. United States, 959 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (clarifies that a NITU effects a taking only if, but-for the NITU, the railroad would have abandoned during the NITU period)
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (discusses NITU-based takings timing and accrual)
- Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Ry. Co. v. Coffee County, 110 S.E. 214 (Ga. 1921) (holding deed calling for "right of way" conveyed an easement despite habendum/warranty language)
- Duggan v. Dennard, 156 S.E. 315 (Ga. 1930) (deed for nominal consideration described as right-of-way construed as easement)
- Johnson v. Valdosta, Moultrie & W. R.R., 150 S.E. 845 (Ga. 1929) (analysis of deed language and intent in fee vs. easement disputes)
- Department of Transportation v. Knight, 232 S.E.2d 72 (Ga. 1977) (distinguished; statute required fee acquisition for limited-access highways)