I read with interest the other day of a few families that are taking ROW-to-bike trails to court for the reclamation of the old right-of-way. Seems that the railroad bought (?) the right of way from a family back in the 1800’s. The railroad has abandoned the right-of-way, and the bike trails from rails has now started to make it a paved bike path. The great-great granddaughter has sued to recover the property. Seems there is an issue about if it was abandoned that it would revert to the original owner. The rails to trails people say that it is still recoverable for rail use, so they get it.
Did RR’s get their property with this method? or did they just outright purchase it? This will be interesting when the Supreme Court (Pa.) gets it. Sorry the URL didn’t come out right.
The Railroads acquired ROW by every means that you can think of and then some. It is quite possible that the original agreement provides that the ROW would revert upon abandonment.
In brief, the Superior Court held that - although there was apparently the reversion clause in the original R-O-W documents - the removal of the tracks, the petition to the ICC/ STB to abandon, and the transfer of the R-O-W to the trails group, etc., does not mean and is not the “abandonment” that would “trigger” the reversion to the heirs of original proeprty owners, because the R-O-W is to be maintained as a continuous trail, citing a 2002 opinion by the same Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Buffalo Twp. v. Jones.
These kinds of issues have been extensively litigated in Pennsylvania over the last 25 years or so - there are probably a dozen appellate court cases and opinions on various aspects of it. Since appeals to the Pa. Supreme Court are at its discretion - not automatic - and the Superior Court’s opinion clearly and expressly relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s earlier Buffalo Twp. v. Jones. decision, it will be real interesting to see why the Supreme Court now wants to review a case that apparently followed its own previous guidelines in that decision (precedent).
Additionally, different justices are on the Supreme Court since that 2002 decision - we’ve had something of a mini-taxpayer & citizen revolt here in Pennsylvania since 2006, which included the removal of the then-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Ralph Cappy. Translation: Methink’s its a good bet that the Pennsylvania Supremes are looking to now modify reverse that earlier precedent. Why else would they take a case that they don’t have to, in this well-settled area of law, except to demonstrate th
In almost every instance there is a different deed and codicle. There are some outright purchases with no return to seller, others with such provisions, others with still other provisions. But no clear cut answer until the original papers are found or a court makes a decision. Rail banking is where a certain line is put aside bya government agency for possible reuse as a railroad and is not considered abandoned.
Exactly because this R-O-W was expressly being “rail-banked” is why the Superior Court ruled in this case - and the Supreme Court ruled in the Buffalo Twp. v. Jones case - that the R-O-W wasn’t “abandoned” enough to trigger the reversion back to the property owners. The Superior Court opinion goes into that in quite extensive detail.
Deal with all the dimestore lawyers (clueless, usually the ones without a degree, license or any real training, armed with a vague concept).
Figure out all the past blunders and undo damage where possible
reconstruct the railroad R/W (ROW is a highway term with a different connotation, railroad R/W [broader term, alias the physical plant] is not treated the same as highway ROW)
Deal with the NARPO nazis.
follow in the footsteps of surveyors from 100-150 years ago
engage in some pretty wild historical scavenger hunts
Henry: the concept is “color of title” and it can make life very interesting. And one of the bigger issues that keeps raising its head is the trails people (many of them clueless) trying to claim ANY railroad railroad R/W as theirs by shouting 'RAILBANKed" or “NITU” at the top of their lungs without understanding the concept or following statute procedure. From a surveyor’s point of view, it is as bad as the public’s understanding of adverse possession and condemnation/emminent domain.
I wonder if some of these peoples’ true intention isn’t to claim land from the abandoned ROW, but to blackmail the state into giving them financial compensation for the ROW’s use as trail.
Lyon_Wonder, Trying to speculate about peoples intentions is about as productive as trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.
As MC says. the ‘color of title’ and the long history of title law and adjudication is complex and varies from State to State. The significant point should be that property which belongs to you cannot be taken without compensation. No amount of ‘public good’ shoiud ever override that concept.
It gets even stranger in places like California with recorded title documents, for instance. I recall reading a case in the past couple of years where UP as successor to SP retained title to a strip of land after taking up the tracks in spite of the original grant deed in the “turn of the century” time frame specifically requiring the property’s return. Seems that the legislature passed the Marketable Record of Title Act around 1940 that said people had to “confirm” a new recording of old title documents prior to about 1914 or so, which the people who had made the grant did not do. (There is something about “impairing the obligation of contracts” that bothered me about that particular act, but that hasn’t seemed to bother any of our judiciary.)
As for “adverse possession” and lawyers, I just read an unpublished case today that made me think that the clients of the losing side had a dumber-than-dirt lawyer because it looked like they had that concept on their side bigtime. Oh well, just because someone passed the bar doesn’t mean they actually know much law.
The condo case where people built up against the waterfront (Bay Area?) only to find out that they had to remove their decks and about six feet of the building frontage that encroached on a rail spur ingress and egress about 20 feet wide?
(and I can think of two cases during my time in CA where switch crews, working in the dark, shoved into newly fabricated bridges built between buildings and the more common add-on fire escape stairs/platforms.)
Property for rail R/W and road ROW was granted/taken from other adjacent property. A frequent stipulation of this grant/taking was the condition that if the property granted/taken was not, or no longer, used for the intended transportation purpose then the adjacent property owners could petetion the government and get the property back.
My property in Downers Grove, IL fronted on Downers Drive. To the north was grass and brush that would have been Grant Street if they had ever built Grand Street west of Downers Drive. It was village land, but they had never put in the street and had no intention of ever doing so.
So, I wanted to build a chain link fence so my dogs could run around in my big back yard. You aren’t allowed to just fence your own property, you have to get village permission to fence your own property. So, I applied for a permit to build a fence. I was turned down.
The grass and bush north of my house was technically Grant Street. This made my land facing the grass and bush a technical “Front Yard” and we weren’t allowed to put chain link fences in front yards. So, since Grant Street wasn’t really a street, and never would be a street, I petitioned the village board to give me back my half of Grant Street. (My neighbor got the other half.)
Then an Envioronmental Whacko showed up arguing before the village board that I should never have been allowed to bring such a petition. (Never mind that the US Consitution specifically recognizes my right to petitiion the government.) He was loosing before the village board, so he went to the park board which went on record against me without ever hearing me. Jerks.
Back and forth before the boards, around and around, waste of time. All I wanted to do was build a fence. It wasn’t going to hurt anything. Just something to give false meaning to life for an environmentalist nut with no
In Connecticut, if the land was taken by “eminent domain” so a railroad could be built (in the 1800s), it reverts back to the State to be “Railbanked” with all improvements in place (Rails) if abandoned. The State then finds a use for the ROW.
When the New Haven Railroad stopped running north of Danbury to Pittfield MA ,the line was “banked” untill the “Housatonic Railroad” was formed which now operates it at a profit.
When the Gilford Rail System abandon nearly all of the “Canal Line” (ex PC, ex New Haven, ex New Haven & North Hampton), the state took up the tracks and converted it to “Rails to Trails”. They then used the 80lb rail to re-open the Hartford to Middletown line to be operated by the P&W.