Revocable trust scotus decision, railroad easement back to land owner

[knabe]

This decision was about the govenrment wanting to allow trails accessible to the public on private property that previoslynhad a railroad on it from the 1875 act allowing a railroad essentially a right of way through private property.  If the railroad abandons e track, the desision allows the land owner their land back with original property rights, due to the abandonment by the railroad.



http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/marvin-m-brandt-revocable-trust-v-united-states-post-decision-scotuscast


Interesting decision.

By a vote of 8-1, the Court held, in an opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, that under well-established common law property principles, an easement disappears when abandoned by its beneficiary and the owner of the underlying land--here a private party--resumes a full and unencumbered interest in said land. The contrary decision of the lower court was reversed and remanded. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.


Of course she did. In her dissent, she mentions thousands of miles of railroad lines with existing public access which are now exposed to lawsuits regarding their access.  Should be interesting.

 

[GoWyo]

There have been a number of these cases over the years.  The federal government's Rails to Trails program is what started these fights.  Basically it boils down to the language in the railroad grant.  If there is no specific language, the black letter law is that the abandonment of use for the purpose of the grant (a railroad), results in the easement interest reverting to the adjoining landowner(s).  If there is some type of language that specifies what happens when the easement isn't used for a railroad anymore, and allows it to be used for something else, then that is a whole new ball game.