General Railroad Right-of-Way act of March 3, 1875
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1173_nlio.pdf
Let the games begin...
B-)
Loyal
MARVIN M. BRANDT REVOCABLE TRUST ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the mid-19th century, Congress began granting private railroad companies rights of way over public lands to encourage the settlement and development of the West. Many of those same public lands were later conveyed by the Government to homesteaders and other settlers, with the lands continuing to be subject to the railroads’ rights of way. The settlers and their successors remained, but many of the railroads did not. This case presents the question of what happens to a railroad’s right of way granted under a particular statute—the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875—when the railroad abandons it: does it go to the Government, or to the private party who acquired the land underlying the right of way?"
The answer is the the land reverts to the private property owner upon abandonment (not really a surprise).
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1173_nlio.pdf
(No need for two threads so I deleted mine posted simultaneously with Loyal's)
It's about time dammitt
This ludicrous claim to what should have been private land since railroad abandonment needed to be put out of its misery. For once the Supreme Court got it right.
It's about time dammitt
In my opinion they got it right, not that my opinion means anything, but the twisted road they went down to get to the point!
It's about time dammitt
What was interesting was the R.R. line changed ownership several times before the owners tore up the tracks and abandoned it in 2004. The guvment claimed it two years later and ALL but one of 31 landowners gave up any claims. Reversionary rights should go to the present landowners once the lands were patented away by the federal government. I think the court got it right. 30 states and over 10,000 properties makes for a pretty penny of compensation.:-O
Pablo B-)
Well, I'm glad for the affected land owners, but this over rules law in place for over a century. Gotta agree with the dissenting opinion on the law. The majority decision is nicely formed to get around the facts and the law in order to arrive at a politically ideological driven decision. IMHO
The State of Illinois apparently feels this only applies to the plaintiff in this particular case or others whom might have been granted (or patented) lands by the U.S. Government.
Here's a thread from a few email exchanges this morning concerning this:
"Those basic common law principles resolve this case. When the Wyoming and Colorado Railroad abandoned the right of way in 2004, the easement referred to in the Brandt patent terminated. Brandt’s land became unburdened of the easement, conferring on him the same full rights over the right of way as he enjoyed over the rest of the Fox Park parcel."
The reference to the National Trails Act of 1988 only comes up for this case because it attempted to re-establish a government right of reversionary interest AFTER it had already given the land to Brandt’s 15 years previously…and the court said, No, you can’t do that.
It is an interesting case in that for the most part, any lands conveyed to railroads as part of the Act of 1875 on “public” lands of the government were easement only reverting back to the government should the railroad ever cease to exist.
But no, the Supreme Court did not rule against the Rails To Trails movement…it merely settled a case that Mr. Brandt had against the government for essentially giving land, then trying to take it back in the form of a railroad right of way through Mr. Brandt’s property.
Well, now I'm curious, have to finish reading the opinion.
Sotomayor is saying that the Courts have held since at least 1903 that railroad right-of-way is not typical of common law easements due to the nature of railroad operation requiring exclusive possession. The railroad easement is sui generis, that is different from most easements. The courts have treated them as a limited fee that reverts to the government upon abandonment.
She seems to say the majority is reading too much into Great Northern. A reading of Great Northern is in order.
I looked at some patents recently that were after the railroad. They didn't have any reservation for the rail road. The RR was abandoned late 80's. I haven't researched the whole record but the county ownership plat shows the land still belongs to the RR. Maybe they purchased it later but why would they. It's out in country side, no need to own in fee. The railroad built 1890, the patents 1905-10. I know other places along the ROW reverted. Something goofy here, but not really part of my survey so I'll probably never know. Should the patents have shown the reservation? Ain't like the patentee wasn't on notice that a RR went through the property. I suppose adverse possession would have kicked in at some point.
It's about time dammitt
That seems to be the key, the lands were patented by the feds. But think about that, any 1/41/4 patented by the feds with a railroad traversing it, the railroad property should now revert to the holder of that patent or heirs when the railroad is abandoned. Why that doesn't sense to people is beyond me.
Anyway, I just like the ruling. A breath of fresh air after the sand and gravel ruling that was so nutty.
Even so, Roberts is not showing himself to be adept at writing clear decisions. This one seems awfully convoluted and contorted.
> She seems to say the majority is reading too much into Great Northern. A reading of Great Northern is in order.
Dave, That was the same conclusion I had. To truly see the decision through the eyes of the deciders I will need to read the Full Great Northern.
Off the cuff I think the ruling is sound in that it follows common law, but its sort of a slippery slope as the courts have such long standing rulings siding with a Fee ownership reverting to the govy. More to read I guess.
