Castillo v. United States

• Decision Date: 30 October 2018
• Docket Number: No. 17-1931L,No. 16-1624L,16-1624L,17-1931L
• Parties: REINALDO CASTILLO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. NELSON MENENDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

REINALDO CASTILLO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.

NELSON MENENDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 16-1624L

No. 17-1931L

United States Court of Federal Claims

October 30, 2018

Motions for Reconsideration; Rails to Trails; Centerline Presumption; Florida State Law.

Lindsay S.C. Brinton, Arent Fox, LLP, Clayton, MO, for plaintiffs. With her were Mark F. Hearne, II, Meghan S. Largent, Stephen S. Davis, Abram J. Pafford, Arent Fox, LLP, Washington, D.C.

Davené D. Walker, Trial Attorney, Environment & Natural Resources Section, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With her was Jeffrey H. Wood, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

OPINION

HORN, J.

On June 29, 2018, this court issued its Opinion in Reinaldo Castillo, et al. v. United States, No. 16-1624L (Castillo),¹ and Nelson Menendez, et al. v. United States, No. 17-1931L (Menendez),² denying the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs' cross-motions for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross-motions for summary judgment. See Castillo et al.; Menendez et al. v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. 707, 742 (2018). The facts of the June 29, 2018 Opinion are incorporated into this Opinion with some of the most relevant facts repeated below. The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs were landowners in Miami Dade County, Florida, who alleged that the United States government effected takings of their reversionary interests in a strip of land underlying a railroad line through the operation of the National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq. (2012). On July 2, 2018, the United States Court of Federal Claims Clerk's Office entered judgment in favor of defendant in both the Castillo and Menendez cases and both cases were dismissed. On July 30, 2018, the plaintiffs in both cases filed identical motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(a) and Rule 60(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) (2018) of the court's June 29, 2018 Opinion and July 2, 2018 judgments entered in Castillo and Menendez.

BACKGROUND

In its June 29, 2018 Opinion, this court analyzed whether the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their claims that defendant took their reversionary interests in a strip of land underlying a railroad line once operated by the Florida East Coast Railway (the railroad corridor) without just compensation. See Castillo et al.; Menendez et al. v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. at 710-11. The Florida East Coast Railway acquired property interests in the railroad corridor over time through various conveyances, resulting in a railroad corridor "comprised of four unequally sized and separate rights-of-way and a strip of land resulting from a written deed, that when combined, span 100 feet wide." Id. at 711. The railroad corridor runs north to the south and sits directly west of discrete parcels of land belonging to the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs. See id.

The parties in Castillo and Menendez disputed whether any of the plaintiffs owned the land underlying the railroad corridor. To ultimately succeed on their takings claims, as the moving parties, the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs had the burden to establish that they had a cognizable property interest in the railroad corridor. See id. at 726 (citing Am. Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.), reh'g en banc denied (Fed Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1139 (2005)). It was undisputed that the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs are landowners who each own a parcel of land that is adjacent to the railroad corridor. It was also undisputed that majority of the railroad corridor at issue was an easement granted to the Florida East Coast Railway.³ Defendant, however, attached to its motions for summary judgment in Castillo and Menendez the subdivision plats for the two subdivisions in which the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs each owned a discrete parcel of land. Defendant argued that, based on the two subdivision plats, which excluded the land underlying the railroad corridor from the legal description of the subdivisions, the subdivision developers, who were the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs' predecessors-in-interest, did not own any of the railroad corridor and, therefore, plaintiffs did not own any of the railroad corridor. The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs argued that, because the subdivision plat maps did not sufficiently rebut a presumption under Florida State law that landowners adjacent to an easement own to the center of that easement, plaintiffs owned to the center of the railroad corridor. The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs argued that because they owned to the center of the railroad corridor, they were entitled to summary judgment on this issue.

In its June 29, 2018 Opinion, this court noted that generally under Florida State law, there is a rebuttable presumption that a landowner who owns a discrete parcel ofland adjacent to an easement owns to the center of the easement. See Castillo et al.; Menendez et al. v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. at 736. The court further discussed that a presumption of ownership based on the centerline presumption "can be rebutted, for example, by evidence that the grantor did not own the land underlying the easement at issue, or, if there was ownership of such land, evidence that the grantor clearly reserved title to the land, such that the adjoining landowner would have no interest in the easement." Id. at 738.

Regarding the takings claims for the nine Castillo plaintiffs who each own a parcel of land in the Zena Gardens subdivision, this court stated in its June 29, 2018 Opinion that

these nine Castillo plaintiffs took title to their discrete parcel of land with reference to the Zena Gardens subdivision plat. Under Florida law, when a party takes title by reference to a "recorded plat," "all restrictions, easements, and reserved rights that appear on the plat are incorporated in the instruments of conveyance as if though the same had been recited in the instruments." Peninsular Point, Inc. v. South Georgia Dairy Co-op, 251 So. 2d [690, 693 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)]; seealsoMcCorquodale v. Keyton, 63 So. 2d 906, 910 (Fla. 1953); Miami-Dade County v. Torbert, 69 So. 3d 970, 973 (Fla. Dist. App. Ct. 2011) ("If a landowner plats or subdivides his land into lots or blocks, lays off streets and other public ways, designates portions of the land [as] parks, playgrounds, and similar facilities and then conveys lots with reference to the plat, he is bound by the plat and representations he has made."). Thus, the representations made in the Zena Gardens plat are applied to the Castillo plaintiffs as if incorporated in plaintiffs' respective deeds.

Castillo et al.; Menendez et al. v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. at 738-39. This court noted that the Zena Gardens plat states that Louis and Rebecca Merwitzer are

owners of the S.E. ¼ of the S.E. ¼ of Section 2, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, Miami Dade County, Florida, excepting therefrom a strip of land off the westerly side [of the Zena Gardens subdivision] which is the right of way of the Okeechobee-Miami Extension of the Florida East Coast Railway, have caused to be made the attached plat entitled future planting, trees and shrubbery there on are hereby dedicated to the perpetual use of the Public for proper purposes reserving to the said Louis Merwitzer and Rebecca Merwitzer, his wife, their heirs, successors or assigns, the reversion or reversions thereof whenever discontinued by law.

Id. at 739-40 (emphasis in original). This court also stated that:

The plat makes a specific point to "except[ ]" the railroad corridor from the description of land platted in the Zena Gardens subdivision, which is the same platted subdivision that includes the nine parcels which were eachtransferred to the nine Castillo plaintiffs. Thus, based on the language of the plat, the railroad corridor is not included in the Zena Gardens subdivision. Furthermore, as depicted on the Zena Gardens plat, none of the parcels belonging to the nine Castillo plaintiffs extend onto the railroad corridor but, instead, end at the edge of the railroad corridor. Additionally, there is another paragraph in the plat in which the Merwitzers dedicate various areas of their subdivision to public use. Notably, this paragraph does not reference the railroad corridor. According to Florida State law:

Every plat of a subdivision filed for record must contain a dedication by the owner or owners of record. The dedication must be executed by all persons, corporations, or entities whose signature would be required to convey record fee simple title to the lands being dedicated in the same manner in which deeds are required to be executed. All mortgagees having a record interest in the lands subdivided shall execute, in the same manner in which deeds are required to be executed, either the dedication contained on the plat or a separate instrument joining in and ratifying the plat and all dedications and reservations thereon.

FLA. STAT. § 177.081 (2017).

The Zena Gardens' dedication states:

The Streets, Avenues and Terrace as shown together with all existing and future planting, trees and shrubbery there on are hereby dedicated to the perpetual use of the Public for proper purposes reserving to the said Louis Merwitzer and Rebecca Merwitzer, his wife, their heirs, successors or assigns, the reversion or reversions thereof whenever discontinued by law.

The Merwitzers explicitly dedicate various areas of their subdivision, which are generally used for transportation, such as "Streets" and "Avenues," for public use. The Merwitzers, however, do not mention the railroad corridor, which based on the record before the court was in use by the Florida East Coast Railway at the time the plat was created. Thus, the absence of the railroad corridor in the plat's dedication confirms that the railroad

...