McClurg Family Farm, LLC v. United States
115 Fed. Cl. 1
Fed. Cl.2014Background
- Plaintiffs are Iowa landowners asserting a Fifth Amendment takings claim for property underlying or adjoining a 36.9 mile railroad corridor (Railroad Line).
- INW filed an abandonment with the STB; NITU issued; interim trail use and railbanking contemplated.
- Class certified August 2010; 360 parcels, 279 entities; later narrowed to 341 then 360 after dismissals/agreements.
- Litigation progressed through extensive discovery and cross-motions; 58 parcels remain disputed for liability.
- Court partitions parcels into seven categories and issues a split ruling on liability, with Appendix A summarizing outcomes.
- Judgment grants in part and denies in part the cross-motions; further scheduling to proceed, potentially settlement.
- Appendix and accompanying charts identify sources and ownership/adjacency for each parcel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant is liable for takings on parcels under Burgess/Jenkins rulings | Burgess/Jenkins apply; easements limited to railroad purposes or subject to § 327G.76 | Contested ownership and conveyance narratives; some parcels not subject to liability | Liability determined by category; some parcels liable, some not, some unresolved. |
| What ownership interests exist for parcels with missing or ambiguous conveyance documents | Plaintiffs maintain cognizable property interests based on deeds or adverse possession | Burden on plaintiffs to prove ownership; evidence insufficient on some parcels | On some parcels, ownership proven; on others, claims dismissed for lack of cognizable interest. |
| Effect of adverse possession and Dickinson County’s 1994 quitclaim on adjoining parcels | Adverse possession by Dickinson County transfers fee title | Questionable applicability of adverse possession to these facts | Dickinson County's use and quitclaim lead to fee title acquisition before NITU, defeating adjoining-right claims. |
| Whether parcels not adjoining the rail corridor or separated by third-party land are capable of compensation | Some parcels adjoin despite third-party separation; reversion rights may apply | Separation by third-party land defeats adjacency and eligible compensation | Genuine issues of material fact as to adjacency remain for trial on several parcels. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed.Cir.2010) (takings when NITU destroys state-defined rights; railbanking context)
- Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed.Cir.1996) (ownership threshold: whether railroad acquired fee vs. easement)
- Burgess v. United States, 109 Fed.Cl. 223 (Fed.Cl.2013) (easements limited to railroad purposes; § 327G.76 extinguishment)
- Jenkins v. United States, 102 Fed.Cl. 598 (Fed.Cl.2011) (issues of trail operator as successor; class definitions)
- Louisa County Conservation Bd. v. Malone, 778 N.W.2d 204 (Iowa Ct.App.2009) (adverse possession can vest fee title despite missing original conveyances)
- Collins Trust v. Allamakee Cnty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 599 N.W.2d 460 (Iowa 1999) (prescriptive easement/adverse possession concepts under Iowa law)