ATS Ford Drive Inv. v. United States

• Decision Date: 01 April 2022
• Docket Number: 19-471L
• Parties: ATS FORD DRIVE INVESTMENT, LLC et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

ATS FORD DRIVE INVESTMENT, LLC et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 19-471L

United States Court of Federal Claims

April 1, 2022

Trails Act; Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment; Property Interest Acquired by the Railroad Company; Indiana Law; Legislative Charter; Adverse Possession; Prescription; Centerline Presumption; Competing Claims of Property Owners Association and Individual Property Owners; Lost Conveyance Instruments ICC Valuation Schedules and Maps; Burdens of Proof; Quitclaim Deed; Common Property

Mark F. Hearne, II, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiffs.

Brian R. Herman, United States Department of Justice, Washington DC, for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

MARGARET M. SWEENEY SENIOR JUDGE

Plaintiffs in this case, along with plaintiffs in five other cases before the undersigned, own real property adjacent to a railroad corridor in Marion and Hamilton Counties Indiana.^[1]They contend that the United States violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by authorizing the conversion of the railroad corridor into a recreational trail pursuant to the National Trails System Act ("Trails Act"), thus acquiring their property by inverse condemnation. Four of the cases are proceeding in a coordinated manner, and a subset of plaintiffs from these cases assert claims that require the resolution of common threshold title issues. To resolve these issues, the parties in Pressly and ATS Ford cross-move for summary judgment. As explained in more detail below, the court grants in part and denies in part both motions in each case.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 19, 1846, the Indiana General Assembly enacted an "Act to incorporate the Peru and Indianapolis Railroad Company."^[2] Pursuant to that legislative charter, the Peru and Indianapolis Railroad Company ("PIRC") was authorized to construct a railroad line within Indiana originating in the town of Peru, running through the towns of Kokomo and Noblesville, and terminating in Indianapolis. The legislative charter provided that the railroad corridor was to be no more than eighty feet wide, and could be acquired using a number of mechanisms:

Sec. 15. It shall be lawful for the corporation, either before or after the location of any section of the Road, to obtain from the persons through whose land the same may pass, a relinquishment of so much of the land as may be necessary for the construction and location of the road; as also, the stone, gravel and timber, and other materials that may be obtained on the said route, and may contract for stone, gravel, timber, and other materials that may be obtained from any land near thereto: and it shall be lawful for said corporation to receive by donations, gifts, grants, or bequests, land, money, labor, property, stone, gravel, wood, or other materials, for the benefit of said corporation . . . .

Sec. 16. That in all cases where any person through whose land the road may run, shall refuse to relinquish the same, or when a contract by the parties cannot be made, it shall be lawful for the corporation to [initiate condemnation proceedings].

Sec. 18. That if it shall be found necessary and advantageous to the location and construction of said road, the corporation shall have the right to lay the same along and upon any county or State road: Provided however, That before such location is made, the corporation shall make application to the county commissioners of the proper county, for such right; and said commissioners are hereby vested with power to grant the same, by an order entered upon their records: And provided also, That such right shall be granted on condition that the corporation shall leave a sufficiency of said State or county road in as good repair, for common use, as previous to such occupation.

Further, with respect to the PIRC's acquisition of the railroad corridor, the legislative charter provided (footnote added):

Sec. 19. That when said corporation shall have procured the right of way, as herein before provided, they shall be seized, in fee simple, of the right to such land, and they shall have the sole use and occupancy of the same, but not to interfere with the right of way of any Railroad company heretofore incorporated;^[3]and no person, body politic or corporate, shall in any way interfere with, molest, disturb or injure any of the rights or privileges hereby granted, or that would be calculated to detract from or affect the profits of said corporation.

In accordance with its legislative charter, the PIRC acquired the portions of the railroad corridor at issue in this case. It accomplished its acquisitions under section 15 of its charter through instruments that will be referred to generally as "releases," as well as pursuant to section 18 of its charter. It also acquired portions of the railroad corridor through deed, prescription, and court order.

A railroad line was constructed, and a railroad operated, in the corridor acquired by the PIRC. Eventually, in 1995, the line was purchased by three Indiana municipalities: the City of Fishers, the City of Noblesville, and Hamilton County. In 2017, the municipalities advised the Surface Transportation Board ("Board") of their collective desire to invoke the Trails Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1241-1251, which, as amended, provides for the preservation of "established railroad rights-of-way for future reactivation of rail service" by authorizing the interim use of such rights-of-way as recreational and historical trails. Id. § 1247(d). The following year, they submitted three separate requests to the Board, each relating to a different segment of the railroad line, for the issuance of a Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment ("NITU"). A NITU permits the discontinuation of rail service, the salvaging of track and materials, and, if an agreement regarding trail use is not reached, the abandonment of the line. 49 C.F.R. § 1152.29(d)(1). The Board issued the three NITUs on December 21, 2018, and the municipalities executed trail-use agreements in 2019.

After the Board issued the NITUs, a number of suits were filed in this court in which owners of parcels adjacent to the railroad corridor alleged that through the operation of the Trails Act and the issuance of the NITUs, defendant took their property without paying just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In June 2020, the plaintiffs in Oldham, Pressly, Bradley, and ATS Ford proposed a coordinated approach to resolving their claims. Specifically, they sought to divide themselves into three groups: Group 1 plaintiffs had claims with no outstanding liability issues and could proceed to damages, Group 2 plaintiffs had claims that required the resolution of an essentially identical threshold title issue, and Group 3 plaintiffs had claims with other threshold title issues. The court adopted their proposal.

While the parties were taking steps to determine the amount of just compensation due to the Group 1 plaintiffs, they briefed cross-motions for summary judgment with respect to the claims of the Group 2 plaintiffs. The central issue presented in those motions was whether the releases by which the railroad company acquired particular portions of the railroad corridor conveyed an easement or a fee simple estate. In four substantially identical decisions, the court determined that precedent from the Indiana Supreme Court compelled the conclusion that the releases conveyed fee simple estates.^[4]

The parties Pressly and ATS Ford now cross-move for summary judgment with respect to the claims of the Group 3 plaintiffs.^[5] They raise a number of threshold title issues common among the group, primarily concerning whether particular instruments (or the absence thereof) conveyed an easement to the railroad company. Indeed, plaintiffs' briefs in the two cases are substantially identical with respect to many of the issues, and defendant filed nearly identical briefs (save for the caption) in both cases.^[6] The motions are now fully briefed, and none of the parties requested oral argument. Thus, the motions are ripe for adjudication.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Both plaintiffs and defendant move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. RCFC 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue is genuine if it "may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Id. at 250.

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. The nonmoving party then bears the burden of showing that there are genuine issues of material fact for trial. Id. at 324. Both parties may carry their burden by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials" or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." RCFC 56(c)(1).

The court must view the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Entry of summary judgment is mandated against a party who fails to establish "an element...