Preseault owned land in Vermont that had a railroad
running through it. The railroad shut down in 1970 and in 1975 removed
its railroad tracks, but the railroad never applied for an abandonment
order.
The railroad had gotten a legal easement when they
originally built the tracks.
The actual bill of sale said that the railroad bought
the land in fee simple.
Fee simple means that the railroad completely
owned the land, it wasn't technically an easement.
In order for the railroad to officially abandon the
property, they had to file with the Interstate Commerce Commission, which
they did not do.
Years later, the railroad entered into an agreement with Vermont unde r the Rails-to-Trails Act, where the easement would be
transferred to the State who would maintain the former railroad strip as a
public trail.
Now there was a public trail running across Preseault's
land.
Preseault sued, claiming the Rails-to-Trails Act was
unconstitutional.
The US Supreme Court ruled that the Act was
constitutional.
In general, under the power of eminent domain, the
government can simply take a piece of private property, or create an easement
across a piece of property. This is known as a taking.
The government must compensate for any land they take.
Preseault then sued the Federal Government, claiming that
they took Preseault's property when it authorized the conversion of the
former railroad right-of-way to public use.
Preseault argued that the permanent physical occupation
of the land by the government or the public is a taking of the
owners' property, which is illegal under the 5th Amendment.
The Federal Appellate Court ruled that Presault's property
could not be used for a public trail.
The Appellate Court found that, even though the bill of
sale said that they had acquired the land in fee simple, they did
not own it, they only had an easement.
The owner at the time did not have a choice to sell the
land to the railroad, it was done with the a delegation of the
government's takings power. So no matter what the deed says, it
would be unconscionable for them to have more than an easement.
The Appellate Court found that the railroad had only
acquired easements for the use of the railroad, not for public
trails.
While you could argue that as technology and land use
changes, it would be acceptable to use the easement for other
purposes, those purposes would have to be similar to the
commuter/commerce use that the railroad had.
In addition, the Appellate Court found that the easement
ended at the time the railroad pulled up its tracks in 1975, and transfer
to the State and subsequently the city was unauthorized under the 5th
Amendment without just compensation.
Easement are lost when there is a clear intent to
abandon.
They pulled up the tracks.
Typically, easements for railroads do not specify
a termination date. The usual way in which an easement ends is
by abandonment, which causes the easement to be extinguished
as a matter of law.
Vermont law recognizes not only the ceasing of the use
of the property, but an actual manifestation of intent to cease using the
property for such a purpose.
