I have a situation where a parcel was landlocked by the RR in the 1868 (File Works Lot on the attached map). The RR granted that parcel an easement over the RR property to a road on the north. There was another parcel to the north which had direct access to that road and another parcel to the south with direct access to a road to the south. The parcels are sandwiched between a creek and the RR.
Now the parcel that was granted the easement no longer exists, it was joined with the other two parcels around 1875 to form one larger parcel. I am still researching the exact nature of this transaction but it's complicated due to a lot of different companies/people being involved. I think I have the correct deed but I did not see anything in that deed or the chain of title after the parcels were joined that mentions the easement.
Around 1900 a portion to the south was split off to another company, again with no mention of the easement. This company used the easement for access to the street on north. That parcel is now owned by the City and they claim rights to the easement to get to the street to the north rather than go to the south. It is the highway department. To get to the road on the south is near impossible now due to a bridge being built over the RR by the state in the 60's.
The easement is shown on the VAL maps (parcel 7) but with little additional information than the reference to the original deed granting the easement to the parcel that was already gone at the time of the VAL maps.
Our client is developing the parcel to the north right now and would like to use this ROW for access to his parcel rather than the road to the north due to sight and grade issues. The city seems to feel that he does not have rights to this easement even though their claim is based on the same document that our claim would be.
So the question is...do *either* of these parcels actually have any rights to this old easement? (other than possibly perscription, etc).
Here's a map for reference.
It seems to me that the easement would have became dissolved when all three parcels were unified since you can't have an easement against yourself.
The easement is not over one of those parcels but rather the adjoining RR parcel.
Part of the right of way in question appears to be in a widening of the actual RR ROW specifically for the easement. Where possible the RR would put in a minimum of crossings serving more than one parcel. One can understand that this particular crossing location (at Churchill Street, may be public or private) was intended and well thought out. It allows access to the public road while avoiding the church. The switch was placed to the North of the crossing to avoid a complicated crossing surface. Specific deed references are uneccessary, the Val Map being sufficient public notice of the intent, so refer to it in any description. Any parcel in this area to the East of the RR (original or new) can utilize this easement for access. The S.O.N.Y. parcel to the South would have an easement of neccessity over the File Works parcel.
The RR only acquired what they needed as evidenced by the holding a straight line along the File Works while along RR curves.
The municipality may be incorrectly trying to avoid a public street by excluding others. It is entirely legal that the town maintain a private ROW for the use of the town and certain parcels, without it being a public street. Continued use may make it otherwise.
Paul in PA
The road being inside the RR property (ROW) would not be considered city property and the city would not have much say as to what happens there.
RR does not use the term easement for a road crossing, they have a term "License for crossing ROW".
Using the wrong terminology with them can make a deal go south real fast.
It goes much smoother when the physical crossing exists and has been maintained.
😉
Sometimes lurker/ newbie posting. So, first:
Stumbled on the page a few months back and enjoy the topics/ convo. Thanks for sharing, y'all.
To the topic:
See the link below for some recent reading on this subject (makes me more prone to believe the easement was extinguished upon recombination).
POB - Article (How Not to Create an Easement)
Check the author's post-script/ disclaimer... but it's food for thought.
It is interesting to point out potential motivation by the City, but I bet you'd come up short a rod, or two, trying to sniff out that corner 😉
There are lots of "Easements" from the RR. This deed specifically calls this an easement. I came across another not far from here where there was an easement granted by the RR for the actual crossing to the original land owner. I have also found parcels that were taken my NYS either from the original land owner or even from the RR and then granted back to the RR from the state as a crossing.
Tom
The difference between that article and this situation is that the servient parcel was not merged into the dominant estate. The easement is on the RR property, not the properties that were merged.
It's my thought that the easement that benefited the parcel what was absorbed would (generally, baring any other restrictions) not benefit the new larger parcel as well.
That's the direction I was thinking...this was done on purpose by the RR to get those parcels to the grade crossing.
Tom
I've read many old deeds and easements to and from RRs back in the late 1800s and early 1900s
It was in the mid 1980s when I learned my lesson that the RRs have developed a language of their own.
Was talking with a RR Company when I was told they do not give easements and never will.
It took a seminar by Charlie Tucker to learn more about that.
0.02
yeah I was always taught that as well and I just took his seminar a couple of weeks ago...but if the deed from the RR to the person specifically grants an "Easement" or "Right-of-Way" and it's filed with the clerk, I would still think it is an actual easement rather than a license. There is a clause in this one about it going away if it ceases to be used but it has been continuously used since it's inception.
I used to work for the NYC DEP and we did the same things over our lands...never an easement...always a license...but every so often we would find an actual easement situation.
Tom
Reread/ rethought... and looked at your illustration (which made me more confused: it were upside down and didn't have any text in the callouts).
On this idea, It's my thought that the easement that benefited the parcel what was absorbed would (generally, baring any other restrictions) not benefit the new larger parcel as well.
Is that the case if the language of the easement is to the benefit of "heirs, successors and assigns"? Is the easement appurtenant to the land?
I understand, now, that the easement is not on the formerly-combined, resubdivided parcel. For that reason, I believe it shouldn't have been extinguished unless it was not appurtenant to the land.
NEXT: I think I understand that the way your client (and the City) want to use this easement doesn't even involve crossing the railroad land anymore (I think I read they use it for access to a road to the north)?!?
If that is the case, I'm not sure where you lie. I'm guessing the easement was written for specific ingress/ egress across the railroad tracks. I don't believe it can morph into ingress/ egress across lands that didn't even exist and aren't interested in crossing the tracks.
If I've missed again, I gracefully bow out. Limping home on my, "long week and too short of a weekend ahead". 🙂
IF the area described as "easement" or "right-of-way" was actually upon or across RR property I don't believe the altering (or combining) the dominant estate's size would have an effect on the longevity of the easement.
In a practical world; if the subject access was abandoned for a period of time and the larger combination property enjoyed other avenues of ingress and egress I believe it would be difficult to re-establish those rights unless the "heirs and assigns" were specifically mentioned. The nature and wording of the original granting document would probably hold the key.
Paden's Rule of the Universe No. 72: Railroads win.
Welcome aboard, back-chain
I'm certainly no expert, and I'm not sure I fully understand the situation but here are my few comments:
I would think that the easement would travel with the dominant estate whatever that is, and it wouldn't get extinguished just because it isn't mentioned in subsequent deeds. At a minimum it could cloud the servient estate's title.
I understand parcels of land were combined, but I would think that whatever larger parcel contains the original land of the dominant estate would still hold the easement.
The purpose of the easement should remain the same, so even if the holder of the easement usage is a public agency, I would think it could merely be used to access the dominant estate, and not turn into a public roadway (although I don't think that was your question).
Deeded easements do not go away through mere non-use.
I would be interested in knowing more about the state highway bridge project in the 1960's.
I'm with Back_chain on the reconsidered and "should have looked at the image before commenting". I'm also with Paden on the Railroads always winning.
It looks like this was a service road back to the Standard Oil site from Church Street.
I would think both parcels have some sort of claim to it if it was actually an easement and granted to successors and assigns, since both of the current parcels are portions of the original dominant estate (File Works).
I'm curious of the actual wording of the easement.
Has anyone discussed this with the railroad to get their take on it?
"heirs and assigns"
It explicitly says this 🙂
Railroad
WE have...the response is generally that they don't know...it's the same with crossing information I have tried to get out of them on this line. This is the MTA of NYC. It's an out of service line upstate that you can't even run a truck on now (huge sections of washout, bad bridges, etc). Last train on it was probably 15 years ago and the last truck I saw was about 5 years ago and those guys said they had to get off the track to keep going. It was originally built in 1868 and the line has had at least a dozen owners since then. They could not even locate the Val Maps for me at first...took three months to get them. They could not provide any more info on the line...said those val maps (in extremely poor quality) are all they have. I've tried at least three different contacts and they all point me to the same place. They are good about their other lines...but not this one.
We went to the clerks office and pulled some old maps that were pre-Val Maps and they helped a bit but mostly for historical context to the old deeds. Most of these parcels were either court orders of condemnations. We have searched for those documents but one of the microfilm rolls is blank at the clerks office...the other relevant one is missing. We've also tried the courthouse...they said to go to clerk.
I have a meeting with a local rail historical society next week and we are researching at the National Archives. I have 6 jobs on this line right now...just going to map the whole line at this point.
After a phone call to the city today they seem to be on board now that we have shown them that their reputed access stems from the same document as our reputed access. And that's how we are going to label it unless something substantial turns up in my further research. "Reputed Right of way as per Liber 153 page 477 in 1868". We're going to send the railroad a copy of the survey asking that they confirm it. I'm not 100% sure that they will respond but we'll see.
Tom
Railroad
It's an out of service line upstate that you can't even run a truck on now (huge sections of washout, bad bridges, etc). Last train on it was probably 15 years ago and the last truck I saw was about 5 years ago and those guys said they had to get off the track to keep going.
I would carefully read the original 1868 grant. Many of them are reversionary so if the line is de facto abandoned as in the rails are missing from major parts of it so as to make it impassible by trains it may be seen as being reverted. But there are many state and federal laws involved so as a surveyor I would back off at some point and not be issuing opinions as to title. Better to let the lawyers fight it out.
