Glosemeyer v. The United States

45 Fed.Cl. 771 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps are Missouri landowners who claim to own the fee interests in lands underlying two railroad lines. In order for a railroad to cease operations in an area or abandon its track over a particular section of railroad, it must obtain permission from the appropriate federal government agency. Assuming that the application is approved, then a qualified trail provider may request permission to use the affected right-of-way as a recreational trail. D may issue either a 'Certificate of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment' (CITU) or, in the case of a proceeding involving the exemption of a route from federal regulation, a 'Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment' (NITU). When D issues a CITU or NITU the railroad can discontinue operations, remove track, and take any other measures consistent with the cessation of railroad operations. Any agreement between the railroad and a trail provider must allow D to reopen rail service on the line in the event D or a rail carrier can show that a resumption of rail service is justified. Once an agreement is reached, the trail provider assumes responsibility for the land and is free to commence operation of a trail; the right-of-way has been put in the national 'rail bank' in the event it is needed for future rail service. If no agreement with a trail provider, the railroad is free to discontinue rail service and abandon the right-of-way. The right-of-way then passes out of federal jurisdiction. Once abandoned by the railway, the railroad's right-of-way terminates, and the underlying property owner would then own the parcel free and clear of the burden previously imposed by the now-extinguished easement. MKT filed an application to abandon its rail service. MKT entered an agreement with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and transferred the right-of-way to MDNR for $200,000. MKT then removed the entire track. P sued arguing damages for a taking as without the Act, the land would have reverted back to them and that the MKT has abandoned the easement and the Act created a new easement which constituted a taking. P and D both moved for summary judgment.