Who Gets the Abandoned RR ROW

The first question is was the highway right-of-way bought in fee?

Yes, highway owned by UDOT in fee.

My thought is the highway gets it all.
The owner to the west still abuts the west R-O-W line.

I hadn't though of that one. The UDOT deeds call to the east side of the RR. If you hold that theory (call to edge of ROW is not actually a call to center), the remainder of the original patent stills owns the underlying fee to the RR ROW and should get the whole thing. So a non abutter gets it all. I'm not betting the farm on this one.

How was the tract to the east conveyed prior to the highway?

From current deed, probably derived from tax descriptions:

THENCE SOUTH 60 CHAINS, THENCE WEST 40.21 CHAINS TO THE WEST SECTION LINE, NORTH TO EAST LINE OF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 4.90 CHAINS, THENCE NORTHEASTERY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 1, THENCE EAST 9.96 CHAINS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS 7.16 ACRES IN STATE HIGHWAY.

Sounds like no one has ever owned the ROW except the Federal Gov't and the RR. So nobody else has a claim under reversion. Either it goes back to the US, or else the RR can sell it to whomever they want to, depending on the terms of the original grant.

But that's all speculation by me who never has studied such law.

The patent covers 160 acres in an L shape. The ROW grant from the US to the RR would not have been in fee, just a ROW (easement). If the RR is abandoned it reverts back the private owners of the land. There are many places where the RR bought in fee after patent from private owners. The RR has sold most of this. This is still shown as RR on the county maps. The abutter to the west said he was making an application to get the land. I haven't been through that process. I doing some work for the owners to the east, the remainder parcel from the original patent and sale to UDOT. I just got curious about all this as I went through the records.

Check this out Leon...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1173_nlio.pdf

> Situation:
>
> RR ROW granted from US about 1890 through non patented land.
>
> Land patented to private interest 1906, patent makes no mention of RR ROW but notice is in effect, the RR is there.
>
> About 40 acres of land on west side of RR ROW is sold to another party (all land in the original patent west of RR). RR nuns NNE through original patent. The deed calls to the west side of RR ROW.
>
> UDOT buys a ROW adjacent to the east side of RR in 1957 and builds a new highway.
>
> In 1983 a big flood does a lot of damage to this RR line and the RR abandons it (no Rails for Trails).
>
> So the RR ROW reverts.
>
> So the question is who gets the RR ROW. Since UDOT is the abutter do they get half which they have no use for? Does the abutter to the west get it all? Does the now non abutter to the east (remainder of original patent) get half split down the centerline of the RR ROW? Some other solution?
>
> I don't really know the answer.

If the 1906 patent included all of the land and all the other conveyances called to the right-of-way of the railroad, it would seem to me that the land would still belong the individual/entity that held the original patent.

Check this out Leon...

I've read that before. The easement goes away and the land reverts to the fee owners. Here the issue is who are the fee owners. Probably make your head hurt to figure it out!

I've seen railroad rights of way not even mentioned in the deeds of parcel or preliminary title report, due to the fact that the easement was created by an Act of Congress and never recorded locally. Since UDOT taking is a right of way, I doubt they have any interest in the railroad row. I would get an abstract of title and research it thoroughly. My inkling is the original patentee gets the right of way or whomever it was deeded to in a subsequent deed.

Pablo

I wasn't clear from your original post. Is this the sequence?

-US gives easement to RR
-US sells by patent land in one parcel which the RR crosses
-Parcel owner or successor sells land on west side of RR "to the west side of ROW"
-Parcel owner or successor sells in fee to DOT a strip to "east side of ROW"

That would leave the original parcel owner as still owning the land which had been subject to easement, unless someone can force an interpretation contrary to the apparent wording of the deeds.

You might want to see if there is anything of interest in this Iowa DOT document.
http://www.iowadot.gov/iowarail/railroads/regulatory/rail_abandonment_brochure.pdf

Basically , that's how it happened.

This RR ROW wasn't mentioned in the Patent.

My initial guess is that after the west parcel was severed the tax department wrote their tax description leaving out the railroad (to the east line of the RR ROW). That way the fee owner wouldn't be paying taxes on the acreage. Then later the owners used the tax description to convey (before the UDOT deeds). Then the Tax folks excepted the UDOT area for taxation (new description used for further conveyance). I see tax descriptions used all the time to convey, even now.

Such as the area of county roads (which are easements) excepted in descriptions (Less the county road). When you research the whole line of title there is not an actual deed or conveyance to the county for the road, but the last five conveyances say less the x.xx acres in the county road but never the county listed as a grantee. Basically nobody cares much about the land under the county road (except for oil & gas) and then when there is abandonment such as this RR. Then the question comes up and the record is so full of crap it becomes problematic.

Then I agree it either belongs to the last owner of the full description or more likely goes with the later descriptions even thorough not specifically included (the intent was to sell all they had). Then there is the principle that a call to the edge of a ROW actually means a call to the center. Then abandoned ROW goes to the actual abutters.

I really don't need to figure this out, my clients just want to split their parcel east of the highway into two parcels (end a long brother/brother common ownership before they pass on).

why not think of it like a road easement since it is an easement instead of a fee simple tract like the others.

if it were a road easement, then the owners would get to the center eventhough their deed called to the r-o-w.

applying that notion here, then the first guy got his to the center when he bought it and the second guy got the other side to the center when he bought. if you apply it again, the DOT recieved the east half of the easement when they bought outside and along the east line. no gaps and no overlaps if you can find the center. please leave enough monumentation that it can be found FOREVER.

this is case law, none of which i have here w/ me...sorry, didn't realize there was homework.

now, the question is...how are you going to apply that knowledge and show it on your survey?

what would you show for the road area on any survey? to me, road ownership/easement research and documentation are items that most of the surveys plats that i see are very much lacking in.

West parcel has half of the R/W.

East parcel has the other half. Obviously the east parcel is bisected by the highway.

State has nothing other than highway. It could be argued the State has the east half.

I would think it all should go to the abutter on the west side. The abutter on the east side lost the claim to reversion of the east half by separating himself from the RR by selling off the part abutting the RR to UDOT. UDOT has no need for the RR.

Quiet title action naming everyone under the Sun might be the way to go.

Why the Tracks to Trails people, of course...

They gotta have some way to ride their bicycles down to the beach to surf!