1:10-cv-00193
Fed. Cl.Jul 7, 2011Background
- Port Royal Railroad Line long-distance corridor in SC; rail ownership by SC state instrumentalities; May 2009 NITU issued authorizing interim trail use; railbanking agreement to transfer easement to BJWSA for interim trail use; NITU prevents abandonment and blocks state-law reversion; plaintiffs are opt-in class owners of interests in the affected land; plaintiffs seek just compensation for taking under Fifth Amendment.
- Railbanking would convert easement to perpetual trail use without extinguishing reversion rights under state law but for Trails Act provision; absence of abandonment under state law is the key takings issue.
- Question whether the appropriate measure of compensation is fee-simple value difference (unencumbered vs. trail-use encumbered) or difference between railroad-easement value and trail-use easement value; court must determine starting point and scope of severance.
- Court recognizes that the Trails Act prevents reversion, so the taking occurs when state-law reversion interests are forestalled; damages measured by fee-simple value difference, not simply the encumbered-to-encumbered comparison.
- Court concludes plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment granting taking; defendant’s cross-motion denied; measure is difference between fee-simple value of land unencumbered and value encumbered by perpetual trail-use easement subject to possible railroad reactivation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper measure of just compensation? | Raulerson: measure is fee-simple value difference. | United States: measure is value difference between current railroad easement and trail-use easement with possible reactivation. | Fee-simple value difference; taking measured by una encumbered vs perpetual trail-use value. |
| Does railbanking prevent abandonment under state law? | Railbanking would have caused abandonment absent Trails Act. | Railbanking does not constitute abandonment given Protection by 8(d). | Trails Act prevents abandonment; taking accrues and is measured accordingly. |
| When does a taking accrue in a rails-to-trails scenario? | Taking accrues at issuance of NITU. | Not necessary to define accrual separately from the abatement. | Taking accrues at issuance of the NITU under controlling precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Preseault I v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 494 U.S. 1 (1990) (rail-to-trails takings framework; NITU as non-abandonment event)
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (taking occurs when state-law reversion is blocked by Trails Act)
- Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (taking occurs when state-law reversion interests are blocked from vesting)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (state-law abandonment requires concurrence of intention and actual relinquishment)
- Preseault II v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (reactivation provisions are hypothetical; not indicative of present intent)