Memmer v. United States

• Decision Date: 02 November 2020
• Docket Number: No. 14-135L,14-135L
• Parties: JEFFREY MEMMER, GILBERT EFFINGER, LARRY GOEBEL AND SUSAN GOEBEL, OWEN HALPENY, MATTHEW HOSTETTLER, JOSEPH JENKINS, MICHAEL MARTIN AND RITA MARTIN, McDONALD FAMILY FARMS OF EVANSVILLE, INC., REIBEL FARMS, INC., JAMES SCHMIDT AND ROBIN SCHMIDT, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

JEFFREY MEMMER, GILBERT EFFINGER, LARRY GOEBEL AND SUSAN GOEBEL,OWEN HALPENY, MATTHEW HOSTETTLER, JOSEPH JENKINS,MICHAEL MARTIN AND RITA MARTIN, McDONALD FAMILY FARMS OF EVANSVILLE, INC.,REIBEL FARMS, INC., JAMES SCHMIDT AND ROBIN SCHMIDT, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 14-135L

United States Court of Federal Claims

November 2, 2020

Trial Decision; Rails-to-Trails; Fifth Amendment Taking; Indiana Law; Vacatur and Remand From Federal Circuit Before Addressing Merits of Cross-Appeals to Make a Record for Applying a Multifactor Test (as directed in Caquelin); Effect of Vacatur; Cognizable Property Interests; Liability for a Taking When No Trail Use Agreement Executed, NITU Expires, and Abandonment Not Consummated; Arkansas Game & Fish; Causation; Extent of Taking; Damages for a Temporary Taking

Thomas S. Stewart and Elizabeth Gepford McCulley, Kansas City, MO, for plaintiffs.

David L. Weigert, Edward C. Thomas, James R. MacAyeal, and Daniel Pinkston, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, and Denver, CO, for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

SWEENEY, Senior Judge

In this Rails-to-Trails case, plaintiffs own real property adjacent to railroad lines in southwestern Indiana. They contend that the United States violated the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by authorizing the conversion of the railroad lines into recreational trails pursuant to the National Trail Systems Act ("Trails Act"), thus acquiring their property by inverse condemnation. This case presents an issue of first impression: whether there is a compensable taking in the situation in which the issuance of a Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment ("NITU") did not lead to a trail-use agreement, the NITU expired, and the railroad company did not file a notice of consummation of abandonment despite having no intention to use its line.

The court initially determined liability upon the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Thereafter, the parties reached a settlement on the proper amount of damages and the court entered judgment. Both plaintiffs and defendant appealed and then, shortly thereafter, jointly requested that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") vacate the court's summary judgment decision and judgment to enable further proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit's decision in Caquelin v. United States ("Caquelin I"), 697 F. App'x 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam). The Federal Circuit granted the parties' request and vacated the court's judgment in its entirety. Consequently, none of the court's rulings and orders that provided the basis for that judgment survives, requiring the court to approach this case with a blank slate.

In accordance with the Federal Circuit's mandate, the court on remand allowed additional discovery and then conducted a trial on liability and damages. As explained in more detail below, the court awards damages to plaintiffs in an amount to be determined in accordance with its findings and conclusions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 3

A. Statutory and Regulatory Context ......................................................................................... 3

B. Fifth Amendment Takings and the Trails Act ....................................................................... 6

C. Procedural History ................................................................................................................. 7

II. LIABILITY: PROPERTY INTEREST .................................................................................. 11

A. Legal Standards ................................................................................................................... 11

1. Deed Construction ........................................................................................................... 12

2. Scope of Easements ......................................................................................................... 14

B. Findings of Fact ................................................................................................................... 14

C. Conclusions of Law ............................................................................................................. 18

1. Property Interests Acquired by Indiana Southwestern's Predecessors ............................ 18

a. The Type A Deeds ....................................................................................................... 18

b. The Type A-1 Deeds .................................................................................................... 19

c. The Smith Deed ............................................................................................................ 19

d. The Davis Deed ............................................................................................................ 20

e. The Side Track Deed .................................................................................................... 20

2. Scope of the Easements Acquired by Indiana Southwestern's Predecessors .................. 21

3. Existence of the Easements at the Time of the Alleged Taking ...................................... 22

III. LIABILITY: FIFTH AMENDMENT TAKING .................................................................. 22

A. Legal Standards ................................................................................................................... 22

1. Nature of a Taking ........................................................................................................... 23

2. Causation .......................................................................................................................... 243. Abandonment Under Indiana Law ................................................................................... 25

B. Findings of Fact ................................................................................................................... 28

1. Proceedings Before the Board ......................................................................................... 28

2. Actions of Indiana Southwestern During the Proceedings Before the Board and Thereafter .............................................................................................................................. 31

3. The Character and Use of Plaintiffs' Properties .............................................................. 33

a. The Effinger Property .................................................................................................. 33

b. The Goebel Property .................................................................................................... 34

c. The Halpeny Property .................................................................................................. 36

d. The Jenkins Property .................................................................................................... 37

e. The Martin Property ..................................................................................................... 38

f. The McDonald Family Farms Property ........................................................................ 39

g. The Memmer Property ................................................................................................. 40

h. The Reibel Farms, Inc. Property .................................................................................. 41

i. The Schmidt Property ................................................................................................... 42

C. Conclusions of Law ............................................................................................................. 43

1. The Nature of the Alleged Taking ................................................................................... 43

2. Causation .......................................................................................................................... 48

IV. DAMAGES: EXTENT OF THE CATEGORICAL TAKING ............................................ 51

A. Legal Standard .................................................................................................................... 51

B. Findings of Fact ................................................................................................................... 52

C. Conclusions of Law ............................................................................................................. 52

V. DAMAGES: PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION .................................. 54

A. Legal Standard .................................................................................................................... 54

B. Findings of Fact ................................................................................................................... 55

C. Conclusions of Law ............................................................................................................. 61

VI. DAMAGES: INTEREST AND COSTS .............................................................................. 63

VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 64

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory and Regulatory Context

During the last century, the United States began to experience a sharp reduction in rail trackage. Preseault v. Interstate Com. Comm'n ("Preseault I"), 494 U.S. 1, 5 (1990). To remedy this problem, Congress enacted a number of statutes, including the Trails Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1241-1251 (2006). The Trails Act, as amended, provides for the preservation of "establishedrailroad 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). This process is referred to as "railbanking," and is overseen by the Surface...