So transmission company buys an easement for transmission line from a common owner on both sides of the railroad. The descriptions are described in two separate tracts. They both read from the property line down the centerline of the transmission line to the railroad right-of-way. The railroad abandons it's tracks and completes the abandonment with ICC FRA or whoever it was at the time. The Transmission Company only had a license to cross the railroad. Railroad admits it has no rights to the railroad right-of-way anymore. Ownership reverts to the adjoiners. So is there and easement for the transmission line over the old railroad property? I am thinking no. Anyone have any case law on this one way or another? Thanks
So you say the power easement was acquired from the individual who had a reversionary right to the RR bed and that somehow that RR bed was not included in that easement. Good luck with that in court.The owner knew that the power line would cross the RR bed, so consent is implied.
Why do you ask the way you asked?
Paul in PA
The Transmission Company only had a license to cross the railroad.
Was the license not an easement??ÿ IANAL but I would expect an easement to stay with the land when it reverts ownership to the adjoiner. Is a license different?
I hate abandoned railroad right-of-way issues with a passion.?ÿ The railroads generally did not take the proper action to allow all rights to revert to the adjoiners and in some cases, which adjoiners get those rights over other adjoiners.?ÿ The cheap a$$ railroad companies did not want to spend time and money on doing things correctly.?ÿ That has put the burden on those thousands of adjoiners.?ÿ The worst part is that no clean up was done to remove dangerous and potentially hazardous waste from the right-of-way.
Yeah, I would imagine that since (a) the adjoiners granted the easement, (b) the railroad license likely carried the legal weight of an easement, and (c) the same adjoiners got the reversion, there's a reasonable argument to be made that the easement does not simply disappear.
And if any lines were actually constructed, that would be pretty open and shut.
I'm diggin' up bones, I'm diggin' up bones
Exhuming things that are better left alone
I'm resurrecting memories of a love that's dead and gone
Yeah tonight I'm sittin' alone diggin' up bones
The transmission line has a right to be present in my opinion. However my opinion is irrelevant. I would show the location of the utility and refer to the license with the RR and I've done my due diligence.?ÿ
?ÿ
When you have a specific part of the IRS tax code that calls your industry out as special, you know that the depths of that corrupt situation has no end.....
If the railroad did not own the property in fee and was only a ROW then the land was still held by the underlying owner. The same owner who granted the easement and who is the adjoiner. It can be reasonably assumed the easement granted to the transmission company did not exclude that area where the railroad occupied. Just because the transmission company had to get a license to cross the railroad, certainly does not preclude them from having an easement from the property owner in the same area.
Should the above prove to be false, I would think the argument for a prescriptive easement would prevail.
We had a situation where an existing town was sliced through by the railroad in the 1870's.?ÿ They purchased fractions of lots conforming to their needs.?ÿ That part seemed simple after abandonment except they owned the land, it was not an easement.?ÿ A couple of small additions grew up on either side of the tracks next to where the existing town had been.?ÿ There it was an easement.?ÿ The issue became who should get what part of the railroad as no one had lost anything to the railroad.?ÿ The tracks were at about a 45 degree angle relative to the lots/blocks and streets.
My experience on the east coast is the railroad sells it's property when owned in fee.?ÿ Tracks to trails is a fairly common use of old railroad lines.?ÿ In my community a farmer purchased the railroad along with an old water powered grist and saw mill and turned it into a private museum along with about 30 miles of track.?ÿ?ÿ
There has been too much of that ((**&^^$#%#&^)(*)(&&*^$%$#^%$*^*^) around here, too.?ÿ Many hundreds of miles that will never be converted to trail usage cluttering up things.?ÿ In places the adjoining farmers have hauled off the base rock and dozed things level to the point you can't even tell there ever was a railroad crossing through their land.
I'm surprised Norm didn't link this, which might offer some guidance even in other states:
https://iowadot.gov/rightofway/rowdesign/Appendix%20C%20-%20Abandoned%20RR%20ROW.pdf
Well..It depends, was the railroad an easement before it reverted? What are the terms of the licence? Did the owner grant the tranmision line easement before or after the railroad reverted? How long has the line been in place...(Other questions go here)
The easiest thing to do is have the owner grant an easement for the gap. The Tranmision line isn't going away.?ÿ
?ÿ
A licence is not an easmnet, though the lines can get blurred.?ÿ
