Rogers v. United States, SC14–1465.

• Decision Date: 05 November 2015
• Docket Number: No. SC14–1465.,SC14–1465.
• Citation: 184 So.3d 1087
• Parties: Stephen J. ROGERS, et al., Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

184 So.3d 1087

Stephen J. ROGERS, et al., Appellants,

v.The UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. SC14–1465.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II of Arent Fox, LLP, Clayton, MO; Andrew Prince Brigham of Brigham Property Rights Law Firm, Jacksonville, FL; Raoul G. Cantero, III and David P. Draigh of White & Case LLP, Miami, FL; and James W. Ely, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, for Appellants.

John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, and Lane N. McFadden, Appellate Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; and Michael T. Gray, Appellate Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Jacksonville, FL, for Appellee.

Major Best Harding, James Harold Thompson, and Robert Neil Clarke, Jr. of Ausley & McMullen, P.A., Tallahassee, FL; and Kim Rice Bongiovanni, Assistant General Counsel, CSX Transportation, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, for Amicus Curiae CSX Transportation, Inc.

Robert W. Goldman of Goldman Felcoski & Stone, P.A., Naples, FL, for Amicus Curiae The Real Property, Probate & Trust Law Section of The Florida Bar.

Matthew Zane Leopold, General Counsel, Craig Deron Varn, General Counsel, Ronald Elliot D. Potter, Senior Assistant General Counsel, and Sarah Meyer Doar, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL, for Amicus Curiae Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.

Kenneth Bradley Bell, Amy Brigham Boulris, and Lauren Vickroy Purdy of Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Amici Curiae Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway, LLC, The Apalachicola Northern Railway, LLC, The Bay Line Railroad, LLC, The First Coast Railroad, Inc., The Florida Central Railroad Company, Inc., Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, The Florida Midland Railroad Company, Inc., The Florida Northern Railroad Company, Inc., Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company, Seminole Gulf Railway, LP, and The Talleyrand Terminal Railroad Company, Inc.Alexandra Jennifer Overhoff, Tallahassee, FL, for Amicus Curiae Florida Land Title Association.

Marc Allen Peoples, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, for Amicus Curiae Florida Department of Transportation.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Allen C. Winsor, Solicitor General, and Rachel Erin Nordby, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, FL, for Amicus Curiae State of Florida.

CANADY, J.

Under the authority of article V, section 3(b)(6) of the Florida Constitution, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has certified to this Court a question of Florida law which the Court of Appeals found would be determinative of an appeal pending in that court and upon which that court found there to be "no controlling precedent in the existing decisions of the Florida Supreme Court." Rogers v. United States (Rogers III), Nos. 2013–5098 & 2013–5102, slip op. at 4 (Fed.Cir. July 21, 2014). We are authorized to answer the question. See art. V, § 3(b)(6), Fla. Const.

FACTS

This case originates from claims for compensation for takings of property filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The claimants alleged that the conversion of a former railroad corridor into a recreational trail had effected a taking of the abutting landowners' property rights without compensation. The United States Court of Federal Claims, as explained in two opinions, each involving multiple claimants, found, insofar as the current appellants are concerned, that the claimants did not own any property interests in the land formerly used as a railroad corridor and therefore were not entitled to compensation. See Rogers v. United States (Rogers II), 107 Fed.Cl. 387 (Fed.Cl.2012) ; Rogers v. United States (Rogers I), 93 Fed.Cl. 607 (Fed.Cl.2010). The claimants appealed these two decisions, and as stated above, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit certified a question of Florida law for this Court to answer.

The Court of Appeals set forth the following under the heading "A Statement of All Facts Relevant to the Questions Certified":

The property at issue involves, in part, a 12.43 mile long, 100 foot wide strip of land between Sarasota and Venice in Sarasota County, Florida. The Seaboard Air Line Railway ("Seaboard") received property interests for the land underlying its railway through a series of transactions from 1910 through 1941. In the early 1900s, Seaboard surveyed the property it intended to use for its rail way. In a series of four deeds (the Blackburn, Phillips, Frazer, and Knight deeds), property owners conveyed their interests in the northern corridor of the rail way to Seaboard in September 1910. Those deeds appear, on their face, to unambiguously convey a fee simple interest to Seaboard. After receiving these deeds, Seaboard laid track and began to operate trains along the entire corridor as of November 1911. At this time, Seaboard had not received any deed corresponding to the southern portion of the rail corridor, but still operated trains along the entire corridor.

In 1926–27, Seaboard relocated the southern portion of its rail corridor a quarter mile to the east. On April 1, 1927, trains began to run along the relocated rail corridor. Then, on April 4, 1927, Seaboard received a deed from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers pension fund ("BLE") that appears, on its face, to unambiguously convey a fee simple interest in the property corresponding to the relocated southern portion of the rail corridor.^[n.2]] Seaboard continued to operate trains along the entirety of the rail corridor.

[N. 2] Seaboard also received a deed from Venice–Nokomis Holding Corporation on November 10, 1941 that purported to transfer the same property that BLE transferred to Seaboard in the 1927 BLE deed.

In 2003, a successor operator of the rail corridor, Seminole Gulf, sought an exemption from continuing to operate the rail line. The Surface Transportation Board granted Seminole Gulf's petition for an exemption, which allowed Seminole Gulf and Sarasota County the opportunity to negotiate a railbanking and interim trail use agreement. Seminole Gulf and Sarasota County reached an agreement, and CSX Corporation ("CSX"), the owner of the rail corridor, quitclaimed its interest in the property to the Trust for Public Land. CSX then removed its track, and the Trust converted the property into the Legacy Trail.

In addition to these facts, attached hereto are the following documents from the parties' Appendix on Appeal:

1. Court of Federal Claims's Partial Final Judgment, entered May 10, 2013 (A1);

2. Court of Federal Claims's Opinion and Order, entered June 28, 2010 (A2–22);

3. Court of Federal Claims's Opinion and Order, entered September 25, 2012 (A23–42).

Rogers III, slip op. at 5–7 (one footnote omitted). The Court of Appeals stated the certified question as follows:

Assuming that a deed, on its face, conveys a strip of land in fee simple from a private party to a railroad corporation in exchange for stated consideration, does Fla. Stat. § 2241 (1892) (recodified at Fla. Stat. § 4354 (1920); Fla. Stat. § 6316 (1927); Fla. Stat. § 360.01 (1941) ), state policy, or factual considerations—such as whether the railroad surveys property, or lays track and begins to operate trains prior to the conveyance of a deed—limit the railroad's interest in the property, regardless of the language of the deed? ^[n.1]]

[N.1] While the Appellants dispute whether the deeds appear on their face to transfer a fee simple interest in the properties at issue, like the Court of Federal Claims before us, we conclude that they do.

Rogers III , slip op. at 5.

Considering the alternatives included in the Court of Appeals' certified question, we see that there are actually three questions: (1) Does section 2241, Revised Statutes of Florida (1892), limit the railroad's interest in the property, regardless of the language of the deeds? (2) Does state policy limit the railroad's interest in the property, regardless of the language of the deeds? (3) Do factual considerations, such as whether the railroad surveys land or lays track and begins running trains before the conveyance of a deed, limit the railroad's interest in the property, regardless of the language of the deeds? Under the circumstances found to exist by the Court of Federal Claims, we answer all three questions in the negative.

The Court of Appeals' mention of "a railbanking and interim trail use agreement," Rogers III, slip op. at 6, refers to a step in the process for converting an unused railroad corridor into a recreational trail under federal law. See16 U.S.C. § 1247(d) (2012).¹ The national program of conversion of unused railroad corridors into recreational trails, which is intended in part to "preserve established railroad rights-of-way for future reactivation of rail service," 16 U.S.C. § 1247(d), is a valid exercise of the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. See Preseault v. I.C.C., 494 U.S. 1, 17–19, 110 S.Ct. 914, 108 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990).

The present case arises from the claims of a group of owners of land abutting the railroad corridor who claim that conveyances to the railroad by their predecessors in title granted only easements for a railroad right-of-way and did not convey fee simple title; that the abandonment of the railroad right-of-way gave them the right to claim the land free of the easements; and that the conversion of the land to a public recreational trail constitutes a taking for which they are entitled to compensation. "[A] Fifth Amendment taking occurs when, pursuant to the Trails Act, state law reversionary interests are effectively eliminated in connection with a conversion of a railroad right-of-way to trail use." Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226, 1228 (Fed.Cir.2004) ; see also Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308 (Fed.Cir.2005). In the two opinions pending on review in the Court of Appeals, the Court of Federal Claims engaged in a detailed examination and...