Howard v. United States
964 N.E.2d 779
| Ind. | 2012Background
- The Indiana Supreme Court was asked to decide whether railbanking and interim trail use under 16 U.S.C. § 1247(d) fall within the scope of railroad easements created by prescription, condemnation, or deed.
- The dispute arises from a Rails-to-Trails project converting a 21-mile railroad corridor burdened by easements into a public trail upon federal authorization.
- The Surface Transportation Board allowed interim trail use to preserve the right-of-way under the Trails Act, a process known as railbanking.
- Most easements at issue were acquired by prescription or condemnation, with one deed-based easement; the question focuses on the scope of these easements.
- Indiana law holds that the scope of an easement is limited to the purpose for which it was created, here transportation via railroad.
- Indiana does not recognize a general shifting public use doctrine; railbanking creates a new use but does not alter the original purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether railbanking and interim trail use are within the easement scope | Railbanking preserves the easement’s purpose and should fit within scope. | Railbanking changes the purpose from transportation to recreation, exceeding scope. | Not within the scope; railbanking and interim trail use are outside the easement. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Cent. R.R. Co. v. Yarian, 219 Ind. 477 (Ind. 1942) (easements limited to the purpose for which they are created)
- Fox v. Ohio Valley Gas Corp., 250 Ind. 111 (Ind. 1968) (use along easements does not necessarily burden abutting landowners)
- Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (trail use not a taking when rail corridors are preserved for possible reactivation)
- Louisville & Indiana R.R. Co. v. Ind. Gas Co., 829 N.E.2d 7 (Ind. 2005) (gas pipeline use on railroad right-of-way as a variation of use, not a burden)
- Klotz v. Horn, 558 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. 1990) (easements are limited to the purpose for which created)
- Hoffman v. Zollman, 49 Ind.App. 664 (Ind. App. 1912) (eminent domain is limited by necessity and purpose of condemnation)
- Magee v. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127 (Ind. 1898) (alternate means to accomplish purpose (communication lines along roads not a burden))
- Contel of Ind., Inc. v. Coulson, 659 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (prescriptive easement scope limited to purpose; cannot be extended by implication)