Raulerson v. United States
99 Fed. Cl. 9
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Trails Act authorizes STB to preserve future railroad rights-of-way and allow interim use as trails.
- An easement holder seeking interim use must file a NITU, creating 180 days to negotiate interim trail use; otherwise NITU becomes an abandonment notice.
- Port Royal Railroad Line is 25 miles in South Carolina, owned/operated by state instrumentalities, later railbanked with BJWSA under a May 2009 NITU.
- Plaintiffs are opt-in class members owning interests in lands comprising part of the Port Royal line as of May 20, 2009.
- Railbanking would have caused abandonment under state law but for the Trails Act blocking reversion, thereby creating a taking subject to just compensation.
- Court grants plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the measure and existence of a taking; defendant’s motion denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does state-law reversion get forestalled under Trails Act | Plaintiffs: fee simple value governs; reversion blocked by NITU | Defendant: measure based on encumbered values with reactivation potential | Taking begins when NITU issues; damages start from fee simple value |
| Appropriate measure of just compensation | Difference between unencumbered fee simple and trail-use encumbrance | Difference between railroad encumbered and trail-use encumbered values | Damages equal to difference between unencumbered fee simple value and trail-use encumbered value |
| Effect of railbanking agreement on abandonment | Railbanking would have caused abandonment absent Trails Act | Reactiavtation rights create ambiguity | Railbanking does not prevent abandonment for purposes of state-law reversion; taking remains |
| Role of reactivation rights in measuring taking | Reactivation rights do not negate taking | Possibility of reactivation affects valuation | Valuation anchored in fee simple value absent rail easement; not reduced by speculative reactivation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed.Cir.2010) (takings occur when state reversion interests are blocked by Trails Act)
- Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed.Cir.2006) (taking occurs when state reversion interests would vest but are blocked)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed.Cir.2005) (taking occurs when state law would vest reversion absent federal action)
- Preseault I, 494 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) ( Trails Act permits interim trail use and prevents reversion)
- Preseault II, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed.Cir.1996) (reactivation rights speculative; not indicative of abandonment)