Fleenor v. United States
| Docket Number | 21-1355 |
| Decision Date | 23 August 2023 |
| Parties | LONNIE FLEENOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Adam Riley, Flint Law Firm, Edwardsville, IL, for Plaintiffs.
Amanda Stoner, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice Washington, DC, for Defendant.
Plaintiffs each own land abutting former railroad lines and bring Fifth Amendment claims under the National Trails System Act ("Trails Act"). Am. Compl., ECF No. 11. They assert that the government effected a taking of their property when it converted a railroad to a trail. Id. To establish a taking, Plaintiffs must first prove that they had property rights in the land at issue by demonstrating that the original landowner conveyed an easement to the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company ("C&O Railroad" or "the Railroad"). The parties stipulate that each Plaintiff has at least some interest in the land. Stipulations Regarding Title Matters ("First Stipulation"), ECF No. 25; Stipulations Regarding Title Matters ("Second Stipulation"), ECF No. 37. Seventeen source conveyance instruments remain in dispute.
The parties asked this Court to bifurcate proceedings and first determine property title rights and then, where applicable assign liability and just compensation. Scheduling Order, ECF No. 10. Thus, this Opinion addresses only the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the title issues. Plaintiffs also move to strike four documents submitted as evidence.
In sum the Court finds that one deed conveyed an easement while the rest did not. For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Additionally, Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is DENIED.
Plaintiffs each own property adjoining a stretch of land between mileposts COQ 0.0 and COQ 10.1 in Floyd County, Kentucky, known as the "Middle Creek Subdivision." Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ("Def.'s Mot.") Ex. C, at 18, ECF No. 44-3. Between 1941 and 1942, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company acquired this land to build a railroad line. Id. at 80. The line served several coal mines, none of which operate today. Id. at 80-81. In 1987, the C&O Railroad merged into CSX Transportation ("CSXT"). Id. at 81.
On October 5, 2015, CSXT filed a Notice of Exemption with the Surface Transportation Board ("STB") under 49 C.F.R. § 1152.50 seeking authorization to abandon the Middle Creek Subdivision. Def.'s Mot. Ex. C. The City of Prestonburg, Kentucky (the "City") filed a request on November 2, 2015, for a Notice of Interim Trail Use ("NITU") to negotiate acquisition of the line for use as a trail. Def.'s Mot. Ex. D, ECF No. 44-4, at 2. CSXT agreed to negotiate interim trail use for the line with the City. Id.
On December 1, 2015, the STB issued an NITU and imposed a public use condition. Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. ( ) at 13, ECF No. 48. The City requested several extensions of the 180-day negotiating period. Id. The NITU period expired on November 20, 2017. Id. On March 6, 2019, the City requested a second NITU. Id. The STB issued the new NITU on April 30, 2019, and CSXT entered into a trail use agreement with the City. Id. at 14.
Between 1941 and 1942, CSXT obtained the land at issue through many source deeds. Pls.' Mot. at 15-21. These deeds originally conveyed at least partial title to various parcels of land to the C&O Railroad. Id.; Def.'s Mot. Ex. C, at 17. The parties stipulate that several of these deeds conveyed only easements, but numerous deeds in the Middle Creek Subdivision remain disputed. Pls.' Mot. at 15-21.
Eight Plaintiffs claim ownership over land that is at issue in this Opinion.[1] Id. The parties stipulate that each Plaintiff owned the parcel number and their adjacency to the railroad corridor as of April 30, 2019, the date on which the NITU was issued. Second Stipulation at 1; Stipulations Regarding Title Matters ("Third Stipulation") at 1, ECF No. 41. The Plaintiffs and their land parcels are as follows:
Plaintiff Randy Allen claims ownership over parcel 024-00-00-004.00, which is sourced from four deeds: Susie Hale, Edgar Hale, Howard N. Eavenson, and Martha Hale. Pls.' Mot. at 15-16. The parties dispute the interest in the land conveyed in the Susie Hale Deed, but agree that the other three conveyed easements. Id.
Plaintiffs Bill and Demetra Francis claim ownership over four parcels.[2] Id. Parcels 016-00-00-031.00, 016-00-00-031.02, and 016-00-00-031.03 are referenced in the Harmison Slone Deed, Harmison Slone condemnation judgment, Allen Slone Deed, and Howard N. Eavenson Deed. Id. The parties dispute the interest in the land conveyed in the Harmison Slone Deed, Harmison Slone condemnation judgment, and Allen Slone Deed, but stipulate that the Howard N. Eavenson Deed conveyed an easement to the Railroad. Id. The Plaintiffs also claim an interest in parcel 016-00-00-031.01. Id. As it relates to this parcel, the parties dispute the following source deeds: Harmison Slone condemnation judgment, Harmison Slone Deed, Allen Slone Deed, Charles Slone Deed, and Riley Prater Deed. Id. The Howard N. Eavenson and Sallie Prater deeds are not in dispute-the parties agree these deeds conveyed easements. Id.
Plaintiff BMD Enterprises, Inc. asserts ownership interest over parcel numbers 016-00-00-029.00 and 016-00-00-033.00.[3] Id. at 17-18. The source deeds for the first parcel are the Harmison Slone Deed, Allen Slone Deed, Howard N. Eavenson Deed, and the Harmison Slone condemnation judgment. Id. Only the Howard N. Eavenson Deed is stipulated to and the rest are disputed. Id. The source deeds for the second parcel are the Charles Slone Deed, the Second Allen Slone Deed, the Howard N. Eavenson Deed, the Riley Prater Deed, the Sallie Prater Deed, the Susie Hale Deed, and the Edgar Hale Deed. Id.
Plaintiff Myrtle Johnson claims interest in parcel numbers 016-00-00-059.00 and 016-00-00-059.02. Id. at 19. The source deeds for these two parcels are identical. Id. The parties dispute the deeds from Robie Johnson, Roxie Justice, Avanella Hale, Willard Ratliff, and Avanelle Johnson. Id. The parties stipulate that the Elk Horn Coal Corp. and Floyd Elkhorn Coal Co. Deeds convey easements. Id.
Plaintiff Mildred Whitaker disputes parcel 024-00-00-018.00.[4] Id. at 19-20. The parties challenge the land interest conveyed in one deed related to this parcel: the L.M. Johnson Deed. Id. They agree that the other source conveyance instruments-from Howard N. Eavenson and Beverly Whitaker-conveyed easements. Id.
Plaintiff Joseph Slone claims an ownership interest in parcel 016-00-00-38.00. Id. at 20- 21. The parties dispute the source deeds from Daisy Hale Howard, Oscar Slone, and Lewis Slone. Id. They agree again that the Howard N. Eavenson Deed conveyed an easement. Id.
Finally, Plaintiff Edd Ousley brings a claim over parcel 024-00-00-001.00. Id. at 21. The parties dispute the source deeds from L.M. Johnson, Sarah Jane Ousley, and Susie Hale. Id. They agree that Howard N. Eavenson and Edgar Hale conveyed easements to the Railroad. Id.
The parties ask this Court to resolve the disputed deeds. The disputed deeds are, in relevant part, described below. Their corresponding deed book and page numbers accompany the deed name.
The Susie Hale Deed conveyed an interest to the Railroad on January 24, 1941, for one dollar consideration. Pls.' Mot. Ex. D, ECF No. 48-4. The Susie Hale Deed applies to railroad corridor segments adjacent to Plaintiff Randy Allen's parcel, Plaintiff BMD Enterprises, LLC's ("BMD") parcel 016-00-00-033.00, and Plaintiff Edd Ousley's parcel. Second Stipulation 2-4. The deed describes a strip of uniform width and refers to a blueprint study. Pls.' Mot. Ex. D. Notably, the deed conveys lands for the "operation and maintenance of a railroad and its appurtenances thereon, and that in the event of the abandonment of such use, said land shall revert to the grantors, their heirs and assigns." Id.
On April 8, 1941, the Harmison Slone Deed conveyed an interest to the Railroad. Pls.' Mot. Ex. E, ECF No. 48-5. The Harmison Slone Deed applies to railroad corridor segments adjacent to each of Plaintiff Bill and Demetra Francis's parcels (016-00-00-031.0, 016-00-00-031.02, and 016-00-00-031.01) and BMD parcel 016-00-00-029.00. Second Stipulation at 3. This deed conveyed the land parcels for "One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration." Pls.' Mot. Ex. D. It further states that the parties "have bargained, sold, granted and conveyed" the parcels "with covenant of general warranty." Id. The deed describes a strip of uniform width "through located center line of the Middle Creek Line." Id.; Pls.' Mot. Ex. W, ECF 48-23.
The Allen Slone Deed (the "First Allen Slone Deed") conveyed an interest to the Railroad on April 9, 1941. Pls.' Mot. Ex. F, ECF No. 48-6. It applies to railroad corridor segments adjacent to each of Plaintiff Bill and Demetra Francis's parcels and BMD's parcel 016-00-00-029.00. Second Stipulation at 3-4. The First Allen Slone Deed provides the land in exchange for one dollar and other consideration. Pls.' Mot. Ex. F. The Railroad received the property "together with the privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging, unto the [Railroad], its successors and assigns forever." Id. The deed describes a strip of uniform width. Id. On March 5 1941-approximately one month before this deed was executed-there was a condemnation judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial