Sears v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 6
Fed. Cl.2017Background
- The case concerns a subclass of landowners (16 agricultural parcels in Hardin and Marshall Counties, IA) whose land was bisected by a former railroad corridor placed into interim trail use by the STB NITU on August 2, 2012.
- Liability (that the NITU effected a taking under the Trails Act) was conceded; the trial addressed valuation: value of the land taken, cost to reclaim the railbed, severance (point-row) damages, and access claims.
- Appraisers for both sides used Yellow Book sales-comparison methodologies, applying CSR (Corn Suitability Rating), percent tillable, parcel size, and point-row effects to obtain before-and-after values dated to the NITU.
- The court adopted the government experts’ acreage takings and most per‑acre valuations where their comparables required fewer adjustments, but adopted plaintiffs’ tree-removal/reclaimable-area assessments and used LIDAR-derived earthwork volumes for ballast removal.
- The court awarded (per parcel cluster) value of land taken minus cost to reclaim, plus severance damages for point rows (using a 1.25% diminution per 1% of parcel affected), and interest at the Moody’s Aaa rate (3.39% compounded quarterly) from August 2, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Value of land taken (before-and-after market value) | Matthews: per-acre values using comparable sales and adjustments reflecting CSR, tillable %, point rows; plaintiffs’ acreage figures. | Schulte/Thien: alternative comparable sets with fewer adjustments; public-assessment acreage and LIDAR-based site data. | Court adopted gov’t acreage and per-acre values where gov’t comparables required fewer adjustments; awarded value of land taken accordingly. |
| Cost to reclaim (deduction from land value) | Include tree removal, grading; Matthews estimated higher reclaimable acreage and tree costs; did not separately charge ballast removal. | Schulte/Thien: included ballast removal/earthwork (per cubic yard) using LIDAR volumes; lower tree-removal scope. | Court adopted Matthews’ tree-removal and reclaimable-area scope but used gov’t LIDAR volumes for ballast/earthwork; deducted reclaim costs per parcel. |
| Severance (point-row) damages | Plaintiffs: point rows reduce per-acre value; Matthews concluded 1% price loss per 1% point‑row acreage (1:1). | Government: multiple-field study and regression; regression suggested up to 3.14% loss per 1% but not statistically significant given sample; argued effect not reliably quantifiable. | Court found point rows do reduce value, adopted a compromise rate of 1.25% diminution per 1% of parcel affected (using defendants’ linear-foot increases but plaintiffs’ percent increases), and awarded severance damages. |
| Access / landlocking & preemption | Plaintiffs: loss of access and maintenance costs (landlocking) due to trail use; Trails Act preempts state law, so state access protections not applicable. | Defendant: Iowa statutes (327G.11, 327G.81) impose crossing and maintenance duties on trail operators; state law access rights survive and are not preempted by Trails Act. | Court held Iowa law guarantees crossings and successor trail operators assumed maintenance; state access rights are not preempted here, plaintiffs incurred no compensable access damages against the U.S.; maintenance obligations lie with local operators. |
Key Cases Cited
- Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 494 U.S. 1 (Takings analysis for trails conversions)
- United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24 (just compensation measured by market value at taking)
- Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246 (highest and best use standard for valuation)
- United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369 (before-and-after method for easement valuation)
- Rasmuson v. United States, 807 F.3d 1343 (deduct cost-to-reclaim physical remnants in rails-to-trails takings)
- Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (date of taking when NITU issued)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (reversionary interests and timing of taking)
- Otay Mesa Prop., L.P. v. United States, 670 F.3d 1358 (before-and-after conventional method for easement valuation)
- Kirby Forest Indus. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 (interest to make landowner whole for delay in payment)