Arnold v. United States
| Decision Date | 10 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 15-1253L,No. 15-1252L,No. 15-1268L,15-1252L,15-1253L,15-1268L |
| Parties | JOHN ARNOLD, et al., FLYING S. LAND CO., et al., JOE L. DAWSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Fifth Amendment Taking; Rails to Trails; Fee Simple; Easement; Deed Interpretation; Adjacency; Motion to Strike.
R. Deryl Edwards, Law Offices of R. Deryl Edwards, Joplin, MO, for plaintiffs in Arnold, et al. v. United States, Case No. 15-1252L.
Thomas S. Stewart, Stewart, Ward & McCulley, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for plaintiffs in Flying S. Land Co., et al. v. United States, Case No. 15-1253L. With him was Elizabeth G. McCulley, Stewart, Ward & McCulley, LLC, Kansas City, MO and Steven M. Wald and Michael Smith, Stewart, Ward & McCulley, LLC, St. Louis, MO.
Megan S. Largent, Arent Fox, LLP, Clayton, MO, for plaintiffs in Dawson, et al. v. United States, Case No. 15-1268L. With her was Mark F. Hearne, Lindsay S.C. Brinton, and Stephen S. Davis, Arent Fox, LLP, Washington, D.C.
Davené D. Walker, Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With her was Jeffrey H. Wood, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C.
In these Rails-to-Trails cases, plaintiffs are landowners in Kansas and Nebraska who allege that they are entitled to receive just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the United States government allegedly effected takings of their reversionary property interests through operation of the National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq. (2012) (the Trails Act). Plaintiffs allege that when the United States Surface Transportation Board (STB) issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) on October 22, 2015, related to the railroad line allegedly adjacent and near to plaintiffs' property, defendant preempted plaintiffs' state-law right to regain full, unencumbered title to their property. Although plaintiffs' claims in all three cases relate to the same railroad line in Harlan County, Nebraska, and Norton, Decatur, and Phillips Counties, Kansas, plaintiffs filed their takings claims as three separate cases, represented by three separate counsels of record, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The cases, which each include multiple types of plaintiffs, are captioned as John Arnold, et al. v. United States, No. 15-1252L (Arnold),1 Flying S. Land Co., et al. v. UnitedStates, No. 15-1253L (Flying S. Land Co.),2 and Joe L. Dawson, et al. v. United States, No. 15-1268L (Dawson).3
The Nebraska, Kansas & Colorado Railway (NKCR) previously operated a railroad line that extended, in relevant part, approximately 57.31 miles through Harlan County, Nebraska, and Norton, Decatur, and Phillips Counties in Kansas. Plaintiffs are landowners in Harlan County, Nebraska, and Norton, Decatur, and Phillips Counties, Kansas.
On May 14, 2015, NKCR proposed to the STB its intent to abandon 57.31 miles of the railroad line through Nebraska and Kansas, specifically (1) from milepost 3.35 near Orleans, Nebraska to milepost 29.84 at Almena, Kansas; (2) from milepost 47.23 at Reager, Kansas to milepost 78.05 at Oberlin, Kansas; and (3) the Norton Spur in Norton, Kansas. The railroad formalized its proposed abandonment of these segments on June 12, 2015, when it filed a verified Notice of Exemption with the STB. In its Notice of Exemption, the NKCR certified that no traffic had been handled over the railroad line segments for more than two years. The STB issued an abandonment exemption on August 7, 2015, giving the railroad until August 2016 to consummate abandonment. Subsequently, on September 2, 2015, Sunflower Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (Sunflower) filed a statement of willingness to assume financial responsibility over the portion of the rail line that NKCR sought to abandon. On September 14, 2015, Sunflower filed a request with the STB for trail use over the railroad segments that NKCR had proposed forabandonment. NKCR filed a notice on September 24, 2015 that it was willing to negotiate with Sunflower concerning the rail line.
On October 22, 2015, the STB issued a NITU, which invoked Section 1247(d) of the Trails Act Amendment of 1983, 16 U.S.C. § 1247(d), and authorized the railroad to negotiate a trail use agreement with Sunflower. Although the NITU was originally for a period of 180 days, and initially expired on April 19, 2016, Sunflower requested, and NKCR did not oppose, an extension of the negotiation period. The STB issued a decision on April 14, 2016, extending the negotiation period until October 16, 2016. Thereafter, Sunflower requested, but NKCR opposed, a second extension. The STB did not grant any further extensions, and the NITU expired on October 16, 2016. On November 17, 2016, the STB issued a decision providing that if NKCR chose to abandon its rail line, it must file a notice of consummation by December 15, 2016. On December 14, 2016, NKCR requested an extension of its consummation deadline to March 15, 2017, and the STB granted NKCR's request on December 15, 2016. NKCR requested another extension of its consummation deadline on February 16, 2017, which the STB granted on March 3, 2017, thereby extending NKCR's deadline to consummate abandonment of the rail line to September 11, 2017. On September 11, 2017, the STB granted NKCR's request to extend the deadline for NKCR to consummate its abandonment of the rail line from September 11, 2017 to March 1, 2018. NKCR submitted an additional extension of time to consummate abandonment on February 23, 2018, and, on February 28, 2018, the STB granted NKCR an extension of time until March 1, 2019 to consummate abandonment of the railroad corridor. NKCR and Sunflower have not reached a trail use agreement, and, as of the date of this opinion, NKCR has not filed a notice of consummation of abandonment.
The parties in Arnold, Dawson, and Flying S. Land Co. have been unable to reach stipulations regarding title issues, including fee or easement, as well as issues of adjacency.
In Flying S. Land Co., the parties dispute ownership with regard to plaintiff United Methodist Church. Defendant contends that Flying S. Land Co. plaintiff United Methodist Church has not presented adequate evidence to establish its ownership of the property at issue on October 22, 2015, the date the NITU was issued. Plaintiffs allege that United Methodist Church acquired the property at issue upon the death of the previous owner, Loren Gill Sharp. According to plaintiffs, Isiah Sharp devised the property to his son, Loren Gill Sharp, and plaintiffs argue that in probate documents submitted to the court, Isiah Sharp intended to convey the property to Loren Gill Sharp, and, if Loren Gill Sharp did not have children, then the property would pass to the Methodist Episcopal Church at Norcatur, Kansas, upon the death of Loren Gill Sharp. Plaintiffs submit that Loren Gill Sharp died without children on March 8, 1960, and, therefore, title to the property was conveyed to United Methodist Church. In response, defendant argues that, even if Loren Gill Sharp died without children, plaintiffs have not established that Flying S. Land Co. plaintiff United Methodist Church ever acquired title to the property.
The parties have stipulated to many of the adjacency issues. The parties, however, dispute whether the following plaintiffs' properties are adjacent to the portion of the railroad corridor affected by the NITU: Arnold plaintiffs Mark and Shayla Bailey, Harold and Kristelle Mizell parcel 107-36-0-10-04-001,4 Rodney and Tonda Ross' parcel 102-03-0-00-00-004.00-0 on the south side of the railroad corridor,5 and Robert Strevey; Flying S. Land Co. plaintiffs Gerry and Theresa Tally parcel 020-141-01-0-30-20-010.00-0,6 James and Janice Bricker parcel 020-124-18-0-00-03-001.00-0,7 Arnold K. Graham parcel 074-059-31-0-00-00-004.00-0,8 J & C Partnership, Garth Gebhard, and Silverstone & Dake's Canal, Inc. parcels 074-056-24-0-20-01-002.00-0 and 074-056-24-0-20-01-001.00-0;9 and Dawson plaintiffs Conrad C. and Mary R. Cox Trusts No. 1 parcel 740-056-13-0-00-00-005.00-0.10
Kansas State Highway 383 (K-383) runs between a segment of the railroad corridor and the following plaintiffs' properties: Arnold plaintiffs Rodney and Tonda Ross' parcel 102-03-0-00-00-004.00-0 on the south side of the railroad corridor; Flying S. Land Co. plaintiffs Arnold K. Graham parcel 074-059-31-0-00-00-004.00-0, J & C Partnership, Garth Gebhard, and Silverstone & Dake's Canal, Inc. parcels 074-056-24-0-20-01-002.00-0 and 074-056-24-0-20-01-001.00-0; and Dawson plaintiffs Conrad C. and Mary R. Cox Trusts No. 1 parcel 74-056-130-00-00-005-000. Plaintiffs contend that K-383 is an easement on these plaintiffs' properties, so these plaintiffs still own the underlying servient estate and there are no adjacency issues. Defendant disagrees and argues that the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) owns the highway land in fee, so these plaintiffs' parcels are separated from the railroad right-of-way by the highway such that they are not adjacent to the railroad.
Based on submissions from the parties, it appears that the Kansas State Highway Commission acquired the land for a state highway in Phillips County, Kansas, through condemnation proceedings, however, it is not clear if the land for the state highway referenced in the records of the condemnation proceedings submitted to the court became K-383. Excerpts from the condemnation proceeding document are reproduced below, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial