JUST WONDERING IF ANYONE KNEW RAILWAY RIGHT OF WAYS WERE EASEMENTS OR IF THEY OWNED THE LAND OUT RIGHT THANKS.
In most cases railroads do own the land their tracks lie on. There are some exceptions, such as rail lines that were purchased by states or countys of states who puchased railines that railroads spun off as unprofitable but the states wanted to maintain some sort of rail service and hired contractors to run the trains.
Much to complex for a definte answer! Too many factors involved including case law that has been determined through ligitation. Even when RR’s acquired ROW by warranty deed they may still have limited rights.
No responses forthcoming here will answer your question.
Like diningcar said - there are hundreds of answers to that question.
Many small railroads (ie, the Podunk and Podunk Hollow RR) relied on easements, as they didn’t have the cash to buy the ROW. If they then got folded into a larger railroad, that easement likely went along.
Oftimes the localities wanted the railroad, so offered up the necessary land. Might have been an easement, might have been a lease, might have been an outright gift to the railroad - especially if said railroad would be likely to bring prosperity to the locality.
Sometimes railroads did outright buy the land, sometimes they merely leased it (99 years type of thing).
We won’t get into land grants - that’s a whole 'nother animal.
There are folks who make their living sorting out such property rights…
And we know one of them reasonably well, don’t we?
Querry, Mudchicken ! He can quote all sorts of those types of ‘mis-adventursome’ tales; leaving the questioner in stunned silence, and some wonderment! That those kinds of things can actually happen. [yeah][wow]
yes very complex. What i have is a abandoned railway dissecting through our farm. its in canada and original rail act allowed a statutory conveyance of line of way granting railway to take land (for the purpose of their railway) off original land parcel. Now the railway land abandoned and rails removed, i would say that they no longer are using the land for the purpose of what the original statutory grant give them power to use the land for. And should be bound to sell it back to parcel it dissected. Anyway have you ever heard of such a thing, and any insight or help would be much appreciated. PS this a rails to trails movement.
Hire a lawyer, there is no other way. There are several farmers down around Fowlerton Indiana who successfully acquired-back land abandoned by the C&O railroad…and managed to do so in spite of a rails to trails effort to use the land for public benefit. So you might want to have your lawyer research into their effort. Just to see what worked for them. No guarantee the specifics will work out for you, different jurisdictions etc, but past precedent is usually of some value.
Good luck
I was, in a former life a land title examiner for a title insurance company but have no where near the qualifications MC has.
I was assigned metes and bounds property descriptions that were sometimes befuddling. MC has qualifications far above my pay grade of those days. Take his word. He knows of what he speaks.
My own take on this, as described, or at least as I understand what was described, if the RR ‘took’ the land, then when they are no longer using it, the land should revert to the original land-owner. They can’t “sell” it to someone else for any other purpose. They could maybe give it to another railroad for that purpose, but none other for any other purpose.
This is the way some ROW was handled here in Iowa (different country than present situation) and the ROW was being converted to a trail, but at least one farmer went to court to stop them and won. If you look at the Cedar Valley Nature Trail from Cedar Rapids to Waterloo, you will see at least one definite jog in the trail around a farm field. See: 42°14’42.45"N, 91°54’51.02"W
I have heard of that case being made by adjacent landowners, and usually it has been regarding those landowners wanting to acquire the land no longer needed for a railroad versus people wanting the land made into a public trail.
If I were you, I would talk to a lawyer about your interest in the property. I don’t know if this type of case is always black and white. If it isn’t, I exect the trail interests will have a strong legal representation trying to push it in their favor.
I’ll second talking to a lawyer - specifically one with experience in real estate (some lawyers probably don’t understand their own deed, much less one with such a potentially complex history).
You might want to check with a title company, too.
Many municipalities have their tax maps on-line - this might give you an idea of who they believe currently holds title.
Have any of your neighbors done anything with the ROW through their land? Their experience could be enlightning.
If you’re fighting this thing (or at least expect recompense of some sort), you might do well to join up with your neighbors, if they feel the same as you do.
As an example of how some of these things go in the US, consider Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in MARVIN M. BRANDT REVOCABLE TRUST ET AL. v. UNITED STATES from 2014. The history lesson is interesting, as well as enlightening about how convoluted these questions could become. State law is perhaps as convoluted or more so on the topic.
Guys, this is a specifically CANADIAN question, only answerable by those with distinctive competence in applicable Canadian law and policy. There is no reason to discuss United States experience or credentials other than to establish that the situation can be complex. This has been done. If there is a reason to continue the business-as-usual-here ‘discussions’ it should only be done with specific reference to actual Canadian relevance, perhaps starting with Canadian precedents on railroad ROW reversion, or any Canadian counterpart of the United States railbanking legislation.
I don’t want to pry too much, but how long has the line been abandoned for and what Province are you in? That will make a difference too.
I agree with everyone else that only talking to a lawyer and the local municipality will give you a straight answer.
‘Talking with’ a Lawyer is certainly a very good place to start. _BUT,_bear in mind, many attorneys will expect YOU to bring them a case with your 't’s crossed and the 'i’s dotted.
‘Research’ is a key in land cases, one of the specifics; I was exposed to, [tracking DM&A RR]it can start with the original title that was granted to the railroad, and that is usually the local county records office [around here referred to as a Registrar of Deeds]. Depending on the quality of the individuals holding those offices, the records can be illuminating or not. ie: Here in Kansas, many of the AT&SF’s records are held in the files of the Kansas Historical Society [in some cases
Not being a lawyer, I would still have to believe that how that ‘original statutory grant’ was worded will make all the difference in how the matter ultimately plays out. Why not entertain us and post the verbiage used toward that end?
The question was answered: that is there is no answer that can be given on a railfan forum.
As far as everything else - it’s the internet.
“+1” Only points I can add are:
- The precise wording of the statute - and the resulting deed or grant, if any - is critical, and will govern who owns it. For example, it might be the heirs of the original owner of the ROW land, not the present owner. Also, whether the reversion is automatic or requires the claimant to ‘enter’ and make a claim, etc. Also the procedures under any supposed “rail-banking” act.
- What’s needed is not just any lawyer, nor just one qualified in real estate, but one who has handled these kinds of cases before, preferably in the same province, and even better if it involved the same original railroad (not likely, though)
mudchicken here is the resident expert on such matters in the US. I think I know what his response will be, but I’ll let him speak for himself.
- PDN.
Many people sent us messages reporting abuse in this thread. All posts pertaining to that, rather than the question, have been deleted, and moderation has been imposed where appropriate. At least one suggested it be locked. I am reluctant to do that against the slim possibility that someone still has a helpful suggestion, but if there is any more off-topic posting, no matter how seemingly benign, the topic will be locked and those responsible will likely be moderated.
Please, be adults.