Thomas v. United States
106 Fed. Cl. 467
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Rails-to-Trails takings case under the Trails Act railbanking provisions (16 U.S.C. § 1247(d)).
- Plaintiffs claim government action to convert a railroad right-of-way into a recreational trail extinguished reversionary interests, constituting a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
- CSXT owns portions of the rail corridor in fee; other segments are easements by prescription, condemnation, or discretionary conveyances.
- NITU/railbanking issued 2007–2009 enabling interim trail use; trail use agreement transferred a 7.08-mile segment to a trail operator in 2009.
- Crews and Thomas plaintiffs challenge ownership of reversionary interests in Mullins/Small easement and seek compensation for alleged takings.
- Court granted partial summary judgment to some plaintiffs and denied others, clarifying ownership and scope of easements under Tennessee law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who owns the reversionary fee underlying Mullins/Small easement? | Crews claim Crews own reversionary interest as heirs of Mullins. | Thomas own reversionary interest as adjacent landowners; easement terminology favors Thomas. | Thomas have superior claim to the fee underlying Mullins/Small easement; Crews retain interest only in adjacent depot parcel. |
| Do Graff and Golightly deeds limit to railroad purposes only? | Thomas contend deeds grant only railroad-purpose easements. | Government argues deeds are general right-of-way easements, not limited to railroad use. | Graff and Golightly easements are limited to railroad purposes under Tennessee law. |
| Whether railbanking and trail use exceed the scope of railroad-purpose easements? | Trail use outside railroad purposes constitutes a taking. | Railbanking is within scope as railroad maintenance under state law. | Trail use and railbanking exceed the scope of railroad-purpose easements; constitutes a taking. |
| Is the government liable for Takings liability based on railbanking and trail use? | Taking occurs when Trails Act action extinguishes state-law reversionary rights. | Otherwise no liability if within easement scope. | Government liable for taking; takings accrue from action that destroys state-defined property rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Preseault v. United States, 494 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (rail-to-trails takings framework for EUs and reversionary interests)
- Preseault II v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (whether easements are limited to railroad purposes or include future recreational-trail use)
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (taking occurs when trail use outside easement scope extinguishes state reversionary interests)
- Smoky Mountain R.R. Co. v. Paine Oil Co., 496 S.W.2d 904 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973) (bicycle path mention not within railroad operation; limits on railroad purposes easement")
- Bell v. Tenn., 39 S.W.2d 1028 (Tenn. 1932) (right-of-way easements to railroads are for railroad purposes only")
- McLemore v. Memphis & Charleston Ry. Co., 69 S.W. 338 (Tenn. 1902) (grant of right of way to railroad is easement; fee remains with grantor)