110 Fed. Cl. 10
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Plaintiffs allege a physical taking of their reversionary rights in railroad easements reserved by grantors and used as rail beds.
- San Pedro Railroad sought abandonment, and the Surface Transportation Board approved the abandonment and issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) permitting trail use along the easements.
- NITU creates a new easement for trail use and railbanking that exceeds the prior railroad-use easements, potentially triggering takings of the landowners’ reversionary interests.
- On remand, the court held plaintiffs Singletree Ranch and Miller Ranch Trust are entitled to compensation for temporary takings and ordered a joint appraiser to value before and after taking.
- Damages must be calculated on a before-and-after basis, with the before value unencumbered by easements and the after value reflecting easements for trail use and railbanking.
- The court determines the taking is temporary and ends when abandonment is consummated (or abandoned) or when the government withdraws the taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How should before-and-after values be determined? | Ladd: before value should be unencumbered by easements. | Before value should reflect railroad easement; after value reflects trail easement/railbanking. | Before unencumbered value; difference used for damages. |
| When does the temporary taking begin and end? | Beginning at NITU; end date may be later. | Consider NITU expiration or Notice of Consummation deadline. | Taking begins at the NITU; ends when abandonment is consummated or abandoned. |
| Does state-law abandonment timing affect valuation? | Abandonment timing should affect end date. | Abandonment timing is not the defining issue; NITU creates the taking. | Abandonment timing not controlling; NITU creates the taking. |
| Should per-diem damages be adopted from the April 2012 opinion? | Per-diem amounts should be used for ongoing damages. | Per-diem amounts may be incorporated as appropriate. | Parties may use agreed values from the first appraiser for efficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (NITU marks the taking trigger applying to permanent or temporary outcomes)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (NITU may trigger various outcomes; taking may be permanent or temporary)
- Presault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Abandonment timing not the defining issue; public-trail use is a new government use)
- Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Series of NITU orders treated as a single continuous government action)
- Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (NITU-triggered taking outcomes and duration considerations)