Eldridge v. Greenwood
Decision Date | 15 June 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 2851.,2851. |
Citation | 503 S.E.2d 191,331 S.C. 398 |
Parties | Eddie Wayne ELDRIDGE, Charles Louis Beaudrot, Russie Beaudrot Young, Bernard H. Padgett, Homer Charles Walker, and Ray F. Stewart, Individually and on behalf of a Class of Plaintiffs similarly situated, and Herbert Malcolm Crum, Individually and on behalf of a Class of Plaintiffs similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF GREENWOOD, Greenwood County, and the South Carolina Highway Department, Defendants, Of Whom, The South Carolina Highway Department is, Appellant/Respondent, Of Whom, The City of Greenwood is, Primary Respondent/Appellant, Of Whom, Greenwood County is, Secondary Respondent/Appellant. |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
G.P. Callison, Jr. and David M. Tatarsky, both of Callison, Darn, Thomason & Knott, Greenwood; John R. McCravy, III, of McCravy Law Firm, Greenwood; and Stephen D. Baggett, of Burns, McDonald, Bradford, Patrick & Dean, Greenwood, for appellants.
J. Kendall Few, of Few & Few, Greenville; Marvin R. Watson, of Watson Law Firm, Greenwood; and Thomas E. Hite, Jr., of Hite & Pruitt, Abbeville, for respondents.
This appeal concerns the property interests the Railroad 1 acquired in different segments of a rail corridor that ran through the middle of the town of Greenwood, S.C. The Railroad removed the tracks from this corridor in the 1980's as part of a project to relocate the line to the outskirts of town.
We initially address subject matter jurisdiction and conclude this action is properly before us. The other issues on appeal challenge the trial court's determination that the Railroad obtained only an easement in three segments of the rail corridor: (1) the property presumed granted to the Railroad under its charter, (2) the property obtained from the Partlow family in the 1850's through condemnation proceedings, and (3) the property acquired by deed from the Jones family in 1849.
We agree the Railroad obtained only an easement in the properties acquired by deed and by the statutory presumption of grant provisions in the Railroad's charter, but hold the Railroad had a fee simple interest in the property acquired by condemnation. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.
After relocation of the tracks, the Railroad quitclaimed the appropriate portions of its interest in the rail corridor to the City and County of Greenwood. The City and County then transferred their interests to the South Carolina Highway Department.2 The Respondents, who consist of two classes of plaintiffs,3 claim title reverted to them upon the Railroad's abandonment of the rail corridor. This court reviewed the summary judgment stage of this litigation in Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 300 S.C. 369, 388 S.E.2d 247 (Ct.App.1989) (Eldridge I), and we refer the reader to that decision for a thorough discussion of the facts.
Initially, we are faced with the question of subject-matter jurisdiction, which was not raised at the summary judgment stage reviewed in Eldridge I. Appellants contend the jurisdiction of a federal agency, the Surface Transportation Board (STB), preempts the jurisdiction of our state courts to adjudicate an action involving the abandonment of a rail line. In the alternative, Appellants contend that since Respondents did not show STB approval of the railroad's abandonment of the relevant lines, they have failed to meet their burden of proof to establish subject matter jurisdiction. We disagree.
Federal law provides that an interstate rail carrier cannot "abandon any part of its railroad lines" unless the carrier applies to and obtains approval from the STB, which must determine whether the abandonment is consistent with "present or future public convenience and necessity." These statutes expressly state that the STB has exclusive jurisdiction over the abandonment of railroad tracks.4 Thus, the United States Supreme Court has held that the exclusive jurisdiction of the STB5 continues at least until an abandonment application is approved, at which time title to and disposition of former railroad property may be decided under applicable state law. Chicago and N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 101 S.Ct. 1124, 67 L.Ed.2d 258 (1981) ( ); Hayfield N. R.R. Co. v. Chicago and N.W. Transp. Co., 467 U.S. 622, 104 S.Ct. 2610, 81 L.Ed.2d 527 (1984).
A number of state courts have held they did not have jurisdiction over property actions regarding abandonment of railroad rights of way, at least where the ICC or STB had not yet issued a certificate of abandonment. Mobile & Gulf R.R. Co. v. Crocker, 455 So.2d 829 (Ala.1984) ( ); Kansas City Area Transp. Auth. v. Ashley, 555 S.W.2d 9 (Mo.1977) ( ); Trustees of the Diocese v. State, 145 Vt. 510, 496 A.2d 151 (1985) ( ).
Other states have sanctioned state court property actions involving abandoned railways. Jordan v. Stallings, 911 S.W.2d 653 (Mo.Ct.App.1995) ( ); Missouri & Iowa Ry. Co. v. Norfolk and W. Ry. Co., 910 S.W.2d 261 (Mo.Ct.App.1995) ( ); Waldo v. Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co., 307 Pa.Super. 56, 452 A.2d 1035 (1982) ( );6North Carolina R.R. Co. v. City of Charlotte, 112 N.C.App. 762, 437 S.E.2d 393 (1993) (, )review denied, 336 N.C. 608, 447 S.E.2d 397 (1994), and cert. denied, Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. North Carolina R.R. Co., 515 U.S. 1130, 115 S.Ct. 2554, 132 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995).
As a threshold matter, we agree with Appellants that the trial court erred in ruling Appellants had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Claims of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, and subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by filing responsive pleadings or otherwise consenting to the jurisdiction of a particular court. Bunkum v. Manor Properties, 321 S.C. 95, 467 S.E.2d 758 (Ct.App.1996), cert. denied, (S.C. Oct. 17, 1996).
We also note that although the trial court found that the last train ran over the relevant line in 1982, and the tracks were removed shortly thereafter, even a long-standing de facto abandonment is insufficient to defeat the jurisdiction of the STB to determine whether such an abandonment is within the public convenience and necessity. See, e.g. Phillips Co. v. Denver and Rio Grande W. R.R. Co., 97 F.3d 1375 (10th Cir.1996)
(discussing an ICC decision), cert. denied, Phillips Co. v. Southern Pac. Rail Corp., ___ U.S.___, 117 S.Ct. 2480, 138 L.Ed.2d 989 (1997).
Finally, we disagree with the trial court's ruling and Respondents' contention that STB jurisdiction is not present here because this situation involves a mere relocation of a line and not an abandonment. We recognize that federal courts and the STB have ruled in a number of cases that "the [STB] will exercise jurisdiction over the abandonment or construction components of a relocation project, and require separate approval or exemption, only where the removal of track affects service to shippers or the construction of new track involves an expansion into new territory." Missouri Pac. R.R. Co.— Abandonment Exemption, Docket No. AB-3 (Sub-No. 90X), 1996 W.L. 583195, at *3 (S.T.B. October 10, 1996). See also Railroad Comm'n v. Southern Pac. Co., 264 U.S. 331, 345-46, 44 S.Ct. 376, 68 L.Ed. 713 (1924)
; Detroit/Wayne County Port Auth. v. ICC, 59 F.3d 1314 (D.C.Cir.1995); Boston & Albany Ry.—Abandonment, 312 I.C.C. 458 (1961); Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. Trustee Constr., 282 I.C.C. 388 (1952) ( ); In re Application of Philadelphia, Newtown & New York R.R. Co., 67 I.C.C. 252 (1921).
This is known as the "relocation exception." However, the STB, which is usually given the opportunity to determine its jurisdiction, is a highly specialized agency with the expertise to decide these issues. Moreover, the record in this case simply does not set forth sufficient information for this court to determine whether the relocation exception would apply. In the STB decisions, the records obviously contained information such as the exact length of the old and proposed lines, the number of cars that passed over the area in the years prior to the relocation, the exact distance between the old and new lines, the shippers along the old and new stretches, and the exact amount of usage of the railroad by the affected shippers. This court would thus hesitate to determine, as the trial court did, that the Greenwood relocation falls within the relocation exception to the STB's jurisdiction.7
Under the analysis of the preceding section, the contention that the jurisdiction of the STB...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williamson v. Middleton
...301 (Ct.App.2005) ("The determination of legislative intent is a matter of law.") (citations omitted); Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 331 S.C. 398, 417, 503 S.E.2d 191, 200 (Ct.App.1998) ("[T]he interpretation of a statute is a matter of law."). See, e.g., Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Town......
-
James v. United States
...railroad's right-of-way for public highway purposes was inconsistent with the railroad's easement. Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 503 S.E.2d 191, 202 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998) (Eldridge II). The court held that when a "railroad derived its interest to the rights of way pursuant to a statutory pr......
-
Ingram v. United States
...an easement is extinguished upon the railroad's abandonment of the right of way for railway purposes." Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 503 S.E.2d 191, 203 (S.C. Ct. App.) (Eldridge II), reh'g denied (S.C. Ct. App. 1998), cert denied (S.C. 1999).18 Moreover, South Carolina courts have held th......
-
Murrells Inlet Corp. v. Ward, 4384.
...Regime LXVI v. South Island Pub. Serv. Dist., 355 S.C. 529, 532, 586 S.E.2d 146, 147 (Ct.App.2003); Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 331 S.C. 398, 416, 503 S.E.2d 191, 200 (Ct.App.1998); Smith, 312 S.C. at 465, 441 S.E.2d at 334. "[In] an action in equity referred to a master for final judgme......