Beres v. United States
Decision Date | 16 April 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 04-1473L,No. 04-1467L,No. 04-1463L,No. 04-1456L,No. 04-1469L,No. 04-1472L,No. 03-785L,No. 04-1459L,No. 04-1465L,No. 04-1471L,03-785L,04-1456L,04-1459L,04-1463L,04-1465L,04-1467L,04-1469L,04-1471L,04-1472L,04-1473L |
Parties | WARREN S. BERES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Strike; Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment; Rails to Trails;Fifth Amendment Taking; Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Deed Interpretation; Plat Interpretation; Adverse Possession; Preemption;RCFC 56(d).
Cecilia Fex, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, P.C., Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs in D. Mike Collins, et al. v. United States, Case No. 04-1472L;andReid Brown, et al. v. United States, Case No. 04-1473L.
Richard M. Stephens, Stephens & Klinge LLP, Bellevue, WA, for plaintiffs in Warren S. Beres v. United States, Case No. 03-785L;Clifford F. Schroeder, et al. v. United States, Case No. 04-1456L;Clarence A. Peterson, et al. v. United States, Case No. 04-1459L;Raymond Spencer, et al. v. United States, Case No. 04-1463L;Robert C. Nelson, et al. v. United States, Case No. 04-1465L;andEugene Morel, et al. v. United States, Case No. 04-1467L.
Tanya C. Nesbitt, Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section, Environmental 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.
At issue in the court's Opinion is whether ten plaintiffs have an interest in the land underlying the railroad corridor at issue in D. Mike Collins, et al. v. United States, No. 04-1472L(Collins), Robert G. Nelson, et al. v. United States, No. 04-1465L(Nelson), Clarence A. Peterson, et al. v. United States, No. 04-1459L(Peterson), Raymond Spencer, et al. v. United States, No. 04-1463L(Spencer), andClifford F. Schroeder, et al. v. United States, No. 04-1456L(Schroeder).The plaintiffs in the specifically-named, consolidated cases allege that the United States effected a taking without just compensation along a 12.45-mile railroad line (the railroad corridor) near the eastern shore of Lake Sammamish in King County, Washington, when the Surface Transportation Board issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) on September 18, 1998.
The ten specifically-named plaintiffs1 whose interests are addressed in this Opinion are Spencerplaintiffs Raymond and Lael Spencer, John and Carolyn Rossi, and Reid and Susan Brockway, Schroederplaintiffs Clifford and Kathy Schroeder, PetersonplaintiffDonna Marie Raab Matrinez,2CollinsplaintiffsD. Michael and Vanessa Collins, Donald Barrett, Howard and Pam Freedman, and Nelsonplaintiffs Robert and Beth Nelson and the Estate of William F. Hughes.3
The cases were consolidated for case-management purposes under the lead case, Warren S. Beres v. United States, Case No. 03-785L(Beres).The court previously has issued multiple Opinions in the specifically-named cases.SeeBeres v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 408, 412(2012)( )(Beres V).In Beres V, an Opinion in which the court addressed "the scope of the rights of way in these multifaceted takings cases, involving numerous plaintiffs, multiplestatutory land grants, different deed types, a prescriptive easement and subsequent conveyances over a more than one hundred year time period,"the court explained:
One opinion denied defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the interpretation of the General Railroad Right of Way Act of 1875, 18 Stat. 482,43 U.S.C. § 934etseq.(repealed in 1976), (the 1875 Act), and its effect on plaintiffs Warren and Vicki Beres.SeeBeres v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 403(2005)[(Beres I)].This court also issued an Order forwarding the plaintiffs' request for certification on relevant questions of state law to the State of Washington Supreme Court, which the State of Washington Supreme Court summarily denied.SeeSchroeder v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 508(2005)[(Beres II)].Subsequently, this court issued an opinion, addressing issues of collateral estoppel regarding former plaintiffs Gerald L. and Kathryn B. Ray and a number of other plaintiffs in the above captioned consolidated cases.SeeBeres, et al. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 737(2010)[(Beres III)].Finally, this court issued an opinion addressing the question of fee versus easement for a number of the deeds which conveyed rights of way to the railroads.SeeBeres, et al. v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 757(2011)[(Beres IV)].
Beres V, 104 Fed. Cl. at 412(footnote omitted).The facts in the Opinions discussed above are incorporated into this Opinion, and certain facts relevant to the court's analysis are repeated below.Following the numerous previous Opinions issued by this court on a variety of issues and numerous attempts by the parties at settlement negotiations, the parties have filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, as well as a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike, addressed below in this Opinion.
The following specific facts which bear on the issues currently before the court are summarized below.In 1998, the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (Burlington Northern), a successor-in-interest to the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company, sought an exemption to abandon the railroad corridor from the Surface Transportation Board(STB).Beres V, 104 Fed. Cl. at 417(citation omitted).On May 13, 1998, the STB granted Burlington Northern an exemption to abandon the railroad corridor.Id.(citation omitted).On September 16, 1998, the STB authorized The Land Conservancy of Seattle and King County(TLC) to assume financial responsibility for Burlington Northern's right-of-way pursuant to the National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1241 etseq.(1994)(the Trails Act).Beres V, 104 Fed. Cl. at 417(citation omitted).On September 18, 1998, the STB authorized the issuance of a NITU permitting King County and TLC to establish a public recreational trail over the railroad right-of-way, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1247(d)(1994), and, subsequently, King County reached an agreement with Burlington Northern for use of the railroad right-of-way for trail purposes.Beres V, 104 Fed. Cl. at 417.On September 29, 1998, counsel for the TLC indicated to the STB that the parties had reached a railbanking agreement related to Burlington Northern's railroad corridor pursuant to the NITU.Id.
Lake Sammamish is located to the west of the parcels owned by the ten plaintiffs whose interest in the land underlying the railroad corridor currently is at issue in this Opinion.The railroad corridor is to the east of all ten of the plaintiffs' parcels, and the East Lake Sammamish Parkway is to the east of the railroad corridor.The ten plaintiffs' parcels, therefore, lie between Lake Sammamish and the railroad corridor.
The parties dispute whether the metes and bounds in the deeds conveying land to Spencerplaintiffs Raymond and Lael Spencer, John and Carolyn Rossi, and Reid and Susan Brockway, Schroederplaintiffs Clifford and Kathy Schroeder, and PetersonplaintiffDonna Marie Raab Matrinez rebut the centerline presumption under Washington State law.The parties also dispute whether Spencerplaintiffs Raymond and Lael Spencer, John and Carolyn Rossi, and Reid and Susan Brockway, Schroederplaintiffs Clifford and Kathy Schroeder, and PetersonplaintiffDonna Marie Raab Matrinez have an interest in the land underlying the railroad corridor.
The deeds conveying parcels of land to Spencerplaintiffs Raymond and Lael Spencer, John and Carolyn Rossi, and Reid and Susan Brockway all contain references to tracts of land on an unrecorded plat map of a subdivision of land created by Willis J. Connell, as indicated in the text of those plaintiffs' deeds quoted below.4The pertinent portion of the deed conveying parcel number 173870-0035 to Spencerplaintiffs Raymond and Lael Spencer states:
(capitalization in original).The pertinent portion of the deed conveying parcel number 173870-0130 to Spencerplaintiffs John and Carolyn Rossi states:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
