James v. United States
130 Fed. Cl. 707
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Two consolidated rails-to-trails takings suits (James and Brown) challenge the STB’s February 3, 2012 Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) for a 12.8-mile SC Central rail corridor in Chesterfield/Darlington Counties as an uncompensated Fifth Amendment taking. Plaintiffs are underlying fee owners; parties stipulated the railroad held only railroad-purpose easements.
- SC Central filed a notice of exemption to abandon in Dec. 2011; the Town of Cheraw and later Friends of Cheraw sought interim trail use/railbanking and NTIUs issued (Feb. 3, 2012; May 31, 2013). Negotiations never produced a trail-use agreement; the NITU period lasted until Jan. 16, 2015 (authority extension lapsed).
- Plaintiffs claim the NITU converted or prevented reversion of their land to unencumbered fee, or otherwise imposed trail/railbanking burdens beyond the railroad-purpose easement, producing a compensable taking (including severance damages for crossing impairment).
- Defendant conceded the railroad easements were limited to railroad purposes for summary-judgment purposes, argued no taking because (a) no trail-use agreement ever transferred or imposed a new easement, and (b) SC law (S.C. Code § 57-3-220(A)) recognizes rail-preservation/railbanking as non-abandonment/railroad purpose.
- The Court applied the Federal Circuit’s Preseault framework, concluded the NITU authorized non-railroad recreational/railbanking uses that exceeded the original easement scope under South Carolina law, found a compensable taking occurred on issuance of the NITU, and held the taking was temporary (NITU’s effective period). The Court denied defendant’s partial summary judgment and granted plaintiffs’ motion on liability; damages/valuation to follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of property interest | Plaintiffs: underlying owners regained fee when railroad ceased operations; railroad held only railroad easements | Gov't: parties stipulated easements were limited to railroad purposes (does not defeat claim) | Stipulation accepted: railroad held only easements (first Preseault prong satisfied) |
| Scope of easement (railroad v. trail/railbanking) | NITU authorized recreational/railbanking uses outside railroad-purpose easement, so government took property | NITU alone did not convert use; no trail-use agreement, so no new easement imposed | Court: scope inquiry focuses on whether NITU authorized non-railroad use; NITU exceeded easement scope despite no executed trail agreement; taking occurred on NITU issuance |
| Effect of South Carolina statute (§57-3-220(A)) / railbanking as railroad purpose | Plaintiffs: state statute cannot rewrite historic property grants to validate railbanking as within original easement | Gov't: statute shows railbanking/preservation is a railroad purpose under SC law, preventing abandonment and defeating taking | Court: §57-3-220(A) can block abandonment but does not answer whether NITU-authorized trail/railbanking use exceeds the original easement; court construes historical grants narrowly and rejects that railbanking falls within original railroad-purpose easement for these grants |
| Permanent vs. temporary taking; severance/crossing damages | Plaintiffs: NITU effected taking; seek full compensation (including severance for impaired crossing) | Gov't: if any taking, it is temporary; plaintiffs cannot show factors for temporary-taking liability; crossing rights remain under state law so severance claims premature | Court: taking occurred on NITU issuance; nature is temporary (duration limited to NITU period); crossing rights under SC law survive and plaintiffs’ severance damages are not foreclosed but damages phase remains for later resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 494 U.S. 1 (1990) (rails-to-trails takings framework; federal action can preempt state reversionary rights)
- Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Preseault II) (three-part test: ownership, scope, abandonment)
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (NITU issuance is the triggering act for a takings claim; actual trail agreement not required to establish liability)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding Fifth Amendment liability when original easement cannot encompass recreational trail)
- Toews v. United States, 376 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (government authorization of use beyond easement scope effects a taking)
- Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012) (factors for analyzing temporary takings and compensation)