Preseault V. United States 1w6w18

Termination of Easements Preseault v. United States United States Court of Appeals (1996) 

Facts: o o o o



 

o Issue: o

The Rails-to-Trails Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1247(d) (1994), granted the Interstate Commerce Commission (I.C.C.) the power to transfer abandoned land that had previously been used for railway purposes to a public or private entity willing to maintain the land as a public trail. In 1970, a railroad in Vermont shut down, and in 1975 it removed the tracks from the land. In 1985, the state of Vermont and the city of Burlington agreed to create public trails out of the land. In 1986, the I.C.C. approved this arrangement. Preseault (plaintiff), the owner of the land upon which the railroad had operated, sued the United States (defendant), alleging that conversion of the land into a public trail constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The trial court held that no taking had occurred. Preseault appealed. Whether the conversion, under the authority of the Rails-To-Trails Act and by order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, of a long unused railroad right-of-way to a public recreational hiking and biking trail constituted a taking of the property of the owners of the underlying fee simple estate

Holding: o The occupation of the Preseaults’ property by the City of Burlington under the authority of the Federal Government constituted a taking of their property for which the Constitution requires that just compensation be paid. Analysis: o Facts:  The dispute centers on three parcels of land within this tract, area over which the original ran (A, B, and C) o Property interests:  Some right of ways are held in fee simple. Others are held as easements that od not even as a matter of state law revert upon interim use as nature trails.  If the Railroad obtained fee simple, the Preseaults would have no right in the parcels and could make no takings claim  If the railroad acquired only easements for use, and they were limited in uses that did not include public recreation, the Preseaults argument becomes viable.  Determinative issues:  Who owned the stripes of land involved, specifically did the Railroad by 18999 transfers acquire only easements or a fee simple  If the railroad acquired only easements, were the of the easement limited to use for railroad purposes, or did they include future use as public recreational trials  Even if the grants of the railroad’s easements were broad enough to encom recreational trails, had these easements terminated prior to the taking  Requires close look at the instruments, read in light of the common law and statutes of Vermont then in effect.  document made no reference to fee simple.  Parcels A & B = easements.  Parcel C = easement o Warranty deed from August 2, 1899. “to have and to hold the above granted and bargained premises…unto it is the said grantee, its successors and assigns forever, it its and their own proper use, benefit, and behoof forever”  Appears to convey a fee simple.  HOWEVER: there is this implied limitation upon the power, that the company will take only so much land or estate therein as necessary for the public purposes  So it was only an easement o The Scope of the Railroad’s Easement  Issue: Whether the easements granted to the Railroad to which the Preseaults’ title was subject, are sufficiently broad in their scope that the use of the easements for the pubic recreational trail is not a violation of the Preseault’s right as owners of the underlying fee estate  Govt arg: construed to include other pubic purposes as well  RULE: The scope of an easement may be adjusted in the face of changing times to serve the original purpose, so long as the change is consistent with the of the original grant  presumed to have contemplated such a scope for the creation of the easement…allows expansion.  Here, the nature of the usage was clearly different.  Neither party could have foreseen usage for public recreation when they made the original transfer

Termination of Easements o

o



 Doesn’t fall within the scope of an original railroad easement Abandonment  Usually, the grant under which such right-of-ways are created does not specify a termination date. The usual way in which such an easement ends is by abandonment, which causes the easement to be extinguished by operation of law.  Upon act of abandonment, the then owner of a fee estate, the “burdened estate” is relieved of a the burden of the easement.  Not extinguished by simple non-use. Something more is needed.  RULE: In order to establish an abandonment there must be in addition to non; acts by the owner of the dominant tenement conclusively and unequivocally manifesting EITHER a present intent to relinquish the easement or a purpose inconsistent with its future existence. o Railroad removed all equipment = abandonment  The question is not what is technically possible to do in the future, but what was done in the past.  One uncontroversial piece of evidence favoring abandonment = no move has been made by the State or Railroad to reinstall service over the line. The Taking  The record established two based on which the Preseaults are entitled to recover.  One, easements were in existence in 1986 when, pursuant to ICCC Order, Burlington established the recreational trails, and its establishment could not be justified under the or within the scope of the existing easement for railroad purposes.  Two, there was a matter of state law no railroad easement in existence on the parcels, not had there been for more than 10 years, and the City took possession without compensation Dissent

o Notes: o If the strip of land is called “right of way”, the court usually finds an easement is granted. But there are cases finding intention to create a fee simple in other words of the deed or in form of deed. o Methods of termination of easements  pg. 886  Lots of ways