106 Fed. Cl. 635
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Whispell brings rails-to-trails takings claims after converting a railroad right-of-way to a trail under the Trails Act Amendments.
- Alton’s claim: the taking and measure of just compensation for the land underlying a railroad easement converted to a perpetual trail.
- The court previously held Tampa & Gulf Coast’s interest to be an easement, not fee simple, and that the easement did not cover trail use.
- Alton was found to own the land underlying the easement in fee simple at the time of the taking, entitling him to compensation.
- The dispute centers on how to value the property in the “before” condition: with or without the railroad easement.
- The court addresses whether abandonment proof is required and what constitutes the proper damage measure under the Trails Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation of the 'before' condition | Alton: unencumbered fee simple value before taking. | Alton’s prior easement must be valued in the before condition. | Before condition unencumbered value adopted. |
| Abandonment proof requirement | Abandonment proof not required; NITU blocks reversion. | Abandonment must be proven under state law for damages. | Abandonment proof not required for damages. |
| Existence of taking given easement scope | Liability exists due to NITU; easement not include trail. | Taking only if abandonment would have occurred; scope uncertain. | Taking liability established under Preseault II two-prong test. |
| Measure of just compensation | Difference between fee simple value and value burdened by trail easement. | Difference between fee simple value and value with easement including railroad possibility. | Just compensation is the value difference between fee simple and perpetual trail easement. |
| Relevance of League Declaration | League declaration is relevant to abandonment intent. | League declaration is irrelevant to damages if abandonment is not considered. | League Declaration deemed moot; not necessary to damages analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed.Cir.2004) (abandonment framework and takings under Trails Act)
- Preseault v. United States, (Preseault II), 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed.Cir.1996) (three-part inquiry; scope, termination, abandonment)
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed.Cir.2010) (NITU blocks state-law reversion; taking when reversion would have vested)
- Toews v. United States, 376 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir.2004) (limitations on abandonment consideration; scope of easement)
- Macy Elevator v. United States, 105 Fed.Cl. 195 (2012) (before-condition measured as unencumbered land when Trails Act blocks reversion)
- Raulerson v. United States, 99 Fed.Cl. 9 (2011) (damages measured by unencumbered fee interest despite easement)