101 Fed. Cl. 416
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- This is a Rails-To-Trails Act takings case brought in the United States Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act.
- A federal notice (NITU) was issued April 3, 2008 and extended October 28, 2008, delaying disposition of the line for trail use.
- Plaintiffs are divided into Conveyance Plaintiffs (claiming fee simple interests under three older deeds) and Non-Conveyance Plaintiffs (claiming easements or other interests acquired by condemnation or prescription).
- The court analyzes Michigan property law to determine whether the Conveyance deeds conveyed fee simple or easements, citing Quinn, Carmody-Lahti, and related authorities.
- The court holds that the Avery and Lovell deeds conveyed fee simple, while the Barber deed remains unresolved for summary judgment, affecting the Preseault II analysis for those plaintiffs.
- The court concludes that public recreational trail use is not within the scope of the Railroad’s easements under Michigan law, and that Non-Conveyance Plaintiffs establish reversionary fee simple interests; the NITU actions took those interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What property interests did the Conveyance deeds convey? | Conveyance Plaintiffs argued deeds grant only easements. | Government contends deeds convey fee simple interests. | Avery and Lovell confer fee simple; Barber undecided for summary judgment. |
| Do Michigan easements extend to public recreational trail use? | Non-Conveyance Plaintiffs contend trail use is outside scope of easements. | Government argues trail use is within scope or allowed as railbanking. | Michigan law does not authorize recreational trail use within railroad easements. |
| Did the Non-Conveyance Plaintiffs establish reversionary fee simple interests? | Non-Conveyance Plaintiffs assert fee simple reversion exists post-condemnation/prescription. | Government disputes chain-of-title and scope enough to defeat reversion. | Non-Conveyance Plaintiffs have established reversionary fee simple interests in the easements. |
| Did the NITU notices foreclose/forestall takings claims for the conveyed properties? | Conveyance Plaintiffs argue NITU status affected reversionary rights. | Government argues NITU forecloses or limits takings claims. | NITUs forestalled reversionary rights for conveyed properties only to the extent no fee simple remained; not for Barber, which remains undecided. |
| Should the court certify Michigan state law questions to the Michigan Supreme Court? | Certification would aid determination of state property-law issues. | Certification is unnecessary where Michigan law has controlling precedent. | Certification not required; Michigan precedents suffice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Preseault v. United States, 494 U.S. 1 (U.S. (1990)) (Rail-Trails Act takings jurisdiction under Tucker Act affirmed)
- Preseault II, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (three-step state-law property analysis for rail-banking takings)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (takings accrual when NITU issued)
- Quinn v. Pere Marquette Ry., 239 N.W. 376 (Mich. 1931) (deed language governs whether fee simple conveyed when 'to be used for railroad purposes')
- Carmody-Lahti Real Estate, Inc., 699 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2005) (easement language and scope; 'across' not determinative of fee vs easement)
- Garfield Petroleum Corp., 290 N.W.2d 835 (Mich. 1940) (easement restricted to railroad purposes; rights revert after use ends)
- Barnes v. Michigan Air-Line Ry., 32 N.W.426 (Mich. 1887) (public trail uses not within railroad purpose; later overruled in part)
- Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (state law cannot alter property rights fixed at time of easement grant)
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Envtl. Prot., 130 S. Ct. 2592 (Supreme Court 2010) (takings considerations in broader public-property contexts)