Preseault v. United States (U.S. Ct. of Appeals, Federal Circuit 1996) was a notable US court case involving Rail to Trails programs in the state of Vermont. The case involved the scope of the government's ownership in public interests it had abandoned years prior to its decision to reuse the property for another task without considering the land-owners rights. [1] [2]
Beginning in the 1980s the US government began the Rail to Trails program across the nation to alter defunct railroad lines into public trails for recreational use. Since the rise of railroad efficiency and its conglomeration, many lines had become defunct and uneconomical. In an effort to promote conservation, the government enacted a policy that would turn these lines into recreational trails for hiking, biking, or possibly other activities. [1] [3] [2] [4]
Preseault owned the land that a defunct Vermont rail line formerly operated. The railroad had an easement on Preseault's land to operate the line. In 1970 the rail line became completely unoperated and was left defunct until 1975 when the rail track was dismantled leaving the path only. However the railroad never officially filed an abandonment order. [1] [3] [2] [4]
The railroad company had bought the land under a fee simple contract, meaning they legally owned the land. However it was an incorrect filing and for all intents and purposes the agreement was treated as an easement and recognized as such by all parties. Preseault bought the land aware that there was an easement on the land, but believed said easement had been abandoned since the track was dismantled and removed. [1] [3] [4] [2]
When the Rails to trails program was initiated, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) gained ownership of the line and began refitting the line as a recreational trail without the permission of Preseault. The ICC, along with the state, believed they still had rights of use under their easement agreement and that using the trail for a new recreational program was not in violation of the easement's protocol. A trail was built and hikers and bicyclists began transgressing on Preseault's property. Preseault filed a complaint with the ICC stating that his permission was never attained and that he was never compensated. The ICC refused, stating that the easement of the past railroad line had carried over to its ownership. [4] [1] [3] [2]
Preseault therefore brought the case, Preseault vs. ICC (1990), to the US Supreme Court in 1990, arguing that the Rails to Trails program was unconstitutional and was ruled against. Following this loss, Preseault sued the federal government and brought his case, Preseault vs. United States, to the Appellate Court for further review that was finally decided in 1996. [1] [4] [3] [2]
The court first considered if the rights to use the land were under an easement contract, which is how it was effectively used, or if it was under a fee simple, as it nominally was. In this regard the court found that the railroad had in fact procured an easement and not a fee simple. The court then deliberated on the nature of the easement. [1] [2] [4]
Easements can be passed from one title holder to another. However, it generally must follow certain conditions such as:
On both of these conditions the court deliberated and made findings crucial to the case. One, they found that when the railroad dismantled the track in 1975, they had effectively abandoned their right of easement, regardless of having not filed an abandonment order. Therefore, any easement pertaining to the use of this rail track became void. [1] [2] [4]
Secondly the function of the land in question was being used for a different purpose, and therefore could certainly not hold up under easement terms. Fee simple terms would have permitted this, but the court had already determined that the terms of the contract were certainly under an easement. [4] [1] [2]
The court found that Preseault's 5th Amendment Rights, specifically his right of just compensation, had been violated since the land in question was surely his legal property. The easement had been abandoned by the railroad when it dismantled track and thus it never had the legal right to turn easement rights over to the ICC. [1] [4] [2]
The Federal Government was required to pay Preseault compensation for the use of the land and seek his explicit permission to use the land under a new easement contract specific to a recreational trail. [1] [4] [2]
This case greatly reinforces 5th Amendment rights of citizens and bars the government from transferring easements of land for different purposes without just compensation. It also establishes that the distinction in property interest, here between an easement and fee simple ownership, is significant and may help to alter the case's outcome. The property interest in this case was found to be an easement for rail traffic, which would not cover a change to use for public recreation, and which was also abandoned by the railroads from disuse. [1] [4]
Railbanking is the practice of preserving rail corridors for possible future use. Railbanking leaves the railroad, railbed, bridges or bridge corridor, and other infrastructure intact. This relieves the railroad's operator from the responsibility of maintenance, and from taxation. Existing rails may or may not be maintained intact on the railbed, depending on their condition or any planned interim use of the railbed. Often the rail corridor is put in custody of a state transportation agency, which then seeks a new operator for possible rehabilitation or reactivation. This helps ensure the possibility of future restored rail service when new economic conditions may warrant resuming operation.
Eminent domain, land acquisition, compulsory purchase, resumption, resumption/compulsory acquisition, or expropriation is the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use. It does not include the power to take and transfer ownership of private property from one property owner to another private property owner without a valid public purpose. This power can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized by the legislature to exercise the functions of public character.
In property law, title is an intangible construct representing a bundle of rights in (to) a piece of property in which a party may own either a legal interest or equitable interest. The rights in the bundle may be separated and held by different parties. It may also refer to a formal document, such as a deed, that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, possession and title may each be transferred independently of the other. For real property, land registration and recording provide public notice of ownership information.
In English law, a fee simple or fee simple absolute is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. A "fee" is a vested, inheritable, present possessory interest in land. A "fee simple" is real property held without limit of time under common law, whereas the highest possible form of ownership is a "fee simple absolute," which is without limitations on the land's use.
Land trusts are nonprofit organizations which own and manage land, and sometimes waters. There are three common types of land trust, distinguished from one another by the ways in which they are legally structured and by the purposes for which they are organized and operated:
The bundle of rights is a metaphor to explain the complexities of property ownership. Law school professors of introductory property law courses frequently use this conceptualization to describe "full" property ownership as a partition of various entitlements of different stakeholders.
A rail trail is a shared-use path on railway right of way. Rail trails are typically constructed after a railway has been abandoned and the track has been removed but may also share the right of way with active railways, light rail, or streetcars, or with disused track. As shared-use paths, rail trails are primarily for non-motorized traffic including pedestrians, bicycles, horseback riders, skaters, and cross-country skiers, although snowmobiles and ATVs may be allowed. The characteristics of abandoned railways—gentle grades, well-engineered rights of way and structures, and passage through historical areas—lend themselves to rail trails and account for their popularity. Many rail trails are long-distance trails, while some shorter rail trails are known as greenways or linear parks.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state could use eminent domain to take land that was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners and redistribute it to the wider population of private residents.
In real estate, air rights are the property interest in the "space" above the Earth's surface. Generally speaking, owning or renting land or a building includes the right to use and build in the space above the land without interference by others.
The Capital Crescent Trail (CCT) is a 7.04-mile (11.33 km), shared-use rail trail that runs from Georgetown in Washington, D.C., to Bethesda, Maryland. An extension of the trail from Bethesda to Silver Spring along a route formerly known as the Georgetown Branch Trail is being built as part of the Purple Line light rail project.
A right-of-way is a type of easement granted or reserved over the land for transportation purposes, such as a highway, public footpath, rail transport, canal, as well as electrical transmission lines, oil and gas pipelines. In the case of an easement, it may revert to its original owners if the facility is abandoned. In the United States, the term "right-of-way" is also used to denote the land itself, such as the strips of land along a railroad track on which railroad companies own a right-of-way easement.
The North Bend Rail Trail is a 72-mile (116 km) rail trail in north-central and western West Virginia in the United States. It is operated by West Virginia State Parks and is part of the American Discovery Trail.
Land and property laws in Israel are the property law component of Israeli law, providing the legal framework for the ownership and other in rem rights towards all forms of property in Israel, including real estate (land) and movable property. Besides tangible property, economic rights are also usually treated as property, in addition to being covered by the law of obligations.
An easement is a nonpossessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it. It is "best typified in the right of way which one landowner, A, may enjoy over the land of another, B". An easement is a property right and type of incorporeal property in itself at common law in most jurisdictions.
Chinese property law has existed in various forms for centuries. After the Chinese Communist Revolution in 1949, most land is owned by collectivities or by the state; the Property Law of the People's Republic of China passed in 2007 codified property rights.
An abandoned railroad is a railway line which is no longer used for that purpose. Such lines may be disused railways, closed railways, former railway lines, or derelict railway lines. Some have had all their track and sleepers removed, and others have material remaining from their former usage.
Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 572 U.S. 93 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a railroad right-of-way granted under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 is an easement. Therefore, when a railroad abandons such a right-of-way, the easement disappears, and the land owner regains unburdened use of the land.
In the United States, eminent domain is the power of a state or the federal government to take private property for public use while requiring just compensation to be given to the original owner. It can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character.
In English common law, real property, real estate, immovable property or, solely in the US and Canada, realty, refers to parcels of land and any associated structures which are the property of a person. In order for a structure to be considered part of the real property, it must be integrated with or affixed to the land. This includes crops, buildings, machinery, wells, dams, ponds, mines, canals, and roads. The term is historic, arising from the now-discontinued form of action, which distinguished between real property disputes and personal property disputes. Personal property, or personalty, was, and continues to be, all property that is not real property.
