Abbott v. United States
| Decision Date | 28 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 15-211 L |
| Parties | DANNY L. ABBOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
KATHRYN C. DAVIS JUDGE.
Plaintiffs in this rails-to-trails action own land adjacent to the former rail line of the Missouri Central Railroad Company ("MCRR"). They allege the federal government's conversion of the rail line to a public recreational trail constituted a taking of their reversionary interest in the land underlying the line. Over 200 individual claims are at issue in the parties' summary judgment motions now before the Court. This opinion primarily resolves questions of liability based on the interpretation of deeds. For the reasons below, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment are each GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 and the Transportation Act of 1920 grant the Surface Transportation Board ("STB") (initially the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC")) exclusive authority over the construction, operation, and abandonment of railroad lines throughout the country. See Burnett v. United States, 139 Fed.Cl. 797, 801 (2018) (citing Chi. & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 321 (1981)). While railroads played a major role in the nation's development in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the importance of such rail lines to the nation's economy waned over time. "By 1990, the nation's interstate railway system had shrunk from its peak of 272,000 miles of track in 1920 to about 141,000 miles of track, and railroads continue abandoning track each year." Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368, 1370- 71 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Preseault v. Interstate Com. Comm'n ("Preseault I"), 494 U.S. 1, 5 (1990)). Concerned about the permanent loss of railroad track, Congress enacted legislation in 1976, commonly referred to as the Trails Act, to promote the conversion of abandoned rail lines to recreational and/or conservational uses. See Preseault I, 494 U.S. at 5-6. Amendments to the Trails Act in 1983 authorized the ICC, and now the STB, "to preserve for possible future railroad use rights-of-way not currently in service and to allow interim use of the land as recreational trails." Id. at 6; see Burnett, 139 Fed.Cl. at 801 (citing Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226, 1229 (2004)). This process is known as "railbanking." Caldwell, 391 F.3d at 1229.
"In order for a rail line to be 'railbanked,' the railroad company must first file an abandonment application under 49 U.S.C. § 10903, or a notice of exemption from that process under 49 U.S.C. § 10502." Burnett, 139 Fed.Cl. at 802. "In cases involving the exemption procedure, . . . the STB issues a Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment ('NITU'), which also preserves the STB's jurisdiction over the rail corridor, allows the railroad to discontinue operations and remove track and equipment, and affords the railroad and the trail provider 180 days to negotiate a railbanking and interim Trails Act Agreement." Macy Elevator, Inc. v. United States, 97 Fed.Cl. 708, 712 (2011) (citing Caldwell, 391 F.3d at 1229-30).[1] "If the parties reach an agreement, and duly notify the [STB], the right-of-way remains under [STB] jurisdiction indefinitely while used as a recreational trail, and state law may not treat that 'interim use . . . as an abandonment of the use of such rights-of-way for railroad purposes.'" Caquelin v. United States, 959 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 1247(d)). Because the NITU automatically authorizes the interim trail use, the trail provider is then authorized to assume management of the former rail line in the absence of further action by the STB; however, "[i]f no agreement is reached, the railroad company may proceed with the abandonment process." Burnett, 139 Fed.Cl. at 802 (citing 49 C.F.R. §§ 1152.29(d)(1), (e)(2)).
Conversion of a rail line to a recreational trail may give rise to a Fifth Amendment takings claim by a landowner who holds in fee simple the land over which the rail line runs. In such circumstance, the landowner's property is taken for public use if: (a) the railroad held an easement that was narrow, i.e., limited to "railroad purposes," or (b) the railroad held an easement broad enough to encompass trail use but abandoned the easement so that the landowner's property interest became disencumbered. See Ellamae Phillips Co. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Preseault v. United States ("Preseault II"), 100 F.3d 1525, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Where the railroad had a fee estate in the land under the rail line, however, there is no taking. See id.
The basic facts of this case are not in dispute. The real property at issue is situated along a 144-mile rail line in Cass, Pettis, Benton, Morgan, Miller, Cole, Osage, Maries, Gasconade, and Franklin Counties in Missouri. See Ex. 14 to Pls.' Mot. for Partial Summ. J. ( ) at 2, ECF No. 148-15. Construction on this rail line, commonly known as the Rock Island Line, "generally occurred during the first five years of the 20th century," Ex. 1A to Pls.' MSJ at 17, ECF No. 148-1, and multiple different railroad companies owned the rail line over time, starting with the St. Louis, Kansas City, and Colorado Railroad Company (generally referred to herein as "the Railroad"), see Pls.' MSJ at 12, ECF No. 148; Ex. 22e to Pls.' MSJ at 2, ECF No. 148-31. With the exception of an 80-mile stretch between St. Louis and Owensville, the line has not been used since the early 1980s. See ECF No. 148-31 at 2; ECF No. 148-1 at 6-7; Ex. 22a to Pls.' MSJ at 5-6, ECF No. 148-27; Ex. 22b to Pls.' MSJ at 2, ECF No. 148-28.[2]
MCRR acquired the line from Union Pacific in 1999. See ECF No. 148-1 at 17-18; ECF No. 148-31 at 2. On November 18, 2014, MCRR filed a "Verified Notice of Exemption" with the STB pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 10502 and 49 C.F.R. § 1152.50, seeking to abandon its interest in the Rock Island Line. Ex. 2 to Pls.' MSJ, ECF No. 148-3. On December 16, 2014, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources ("MDNR") filed with the STB a request for the issuance of a NITU so that MDNR could negotiate with MCRR for acquisition of the rail corridor for trail use under the Trails Act. Ex. 5 to Pls.' MSJ, ECF No. 148-6. The STB issued a NITU on February 25, 2015. ECF No. 148-15. The STB granted five subsequent extensions, ultimately extending the NITU negotiating period to December 31, 2019. See Exs. 15-19 to Pls.' MSJ, ECF Nos. 148-16-148-20.
On December 20, 2019, MCRR and MDNR filed with the STB a "Notice of Interim Trail Use Agreement," advising that the parties executed an agreement on December 17, 2019, and that a fundraising strategy for conversion of the trail, which would require "substantial financial resources," was underway. See Ex. 20 to Pls.' MSJ at 3, ECF No. 148-21. On December 15, 2021, MCRR and MDNR filed with the STB a "Notice of Property Transfer" indicating that the rail line had been conveyed from MCRR to MDNR. Ex. A to Pls.' Second Mot. for Leave to Suppl., ECF No. 155-1; see Ex. A to Pls.' First Mot. for Leave to Suppl., ECF No. 154-1.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on March 2, 2015. See Pls.' Compl., ECF No. 1; see also Pls.' Fourth Am. Compl., ECF No. 122 (operative complaint filed January 14, 2021). This case was consolidated with Axmark v. United States, No. 16-1138L, on January 17, 2017, and further consolidated with Seamon v. United States, No. 17-1924L, on February 21, 2018. See Axmark Consolidation Order, ECF No. 23; Seamon Consolidation Order, ECF No. 40. Due to a change of counsel, certain plaintiffs and claims were severed from this case on June 12, 2020, under Rule 21 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC") and have since proceeded in Alexander v. United States, No. 15-2111L. See Alexander Severance Order, ECF No. 94. The parties first filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment in late 2020 and early 2021; however, the Court permitted the parties to file amended motions after the initial briefing revealed, according to Plaintiffs, that Defendant took positions contrary to the parties' stipulations and prior discussions. Scheduling Order, ECF No. 140; see Pls.' Mot. to Vacate Br.'g Schedule & for Leave to Am., ECF No. 137.
Plaintiffs filed their amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on August 6, 2021. ECF No. 148. Defendant filed its Response and Cross-Motion on September 3, 2021. Def.'s Resp. in Opp'n to Pls.' MSJ & Cross-Mot. for Partial Summ. J. ("Def.'s MSJ"), ECF No. 149. Plaintiffs filed their Reply and Response to Defendant's Cross-Motion on October 15, 2021. Pls.' Resp. in Opp'n to Def.'s MSJ & Reply in Supp. of Pls.' MSJ, ECF No. 152. Defendant filed its reply on November 12, 2021. Def.'s Reply in Supp. of MSJ, ECF No. 153.
Plaintiffs organize the claims at issue in their Motion into four categories, or "Tables." Table 1 pertains to the claims of nine landowners whose modern deeds (as opposed to source deeds) state that they own the relevant land in fee simple. ECF No. 152 at 10-11. Table 2 includes 17 landowners for whom Plaintiffs assert that the Railroad obtained only an easement over the land, not a fee simple estate. Id. at 12-13. As to the 54 landowners listed in Table 3, for whom Defendant does not dispute ownership, Plaintiffs assert that the Railroad's easement was limited to "railroad purposes" and thus not broad enough to encompass trail use. Id. at 16-20. Finally, for the 20...
To continue reading
Request your trial