Case Title: Murray v. Dep’t of Conservation & Recreation

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12002

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2016-08-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12002 
 
ELAINE K. MURRAY & another1  vs.  DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND 
RECREATION. 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     April 5, 2016. - August 4, 2016. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & 
Hines, JJ.2 
 
 
Land Court, Jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction, Land Court.  Railroad.  
Easement.  Real Property, Easement. 
 
 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on 
September 19, 2011. 
 
 
The case was heard by Gordon H. Piper, J., on motions for 
summary judgment. 
 
 
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative 
transferred the case from the Appeals Court. 
 
 
 
David A. Murray (Peter M. Schilling with him) for the 
plaintiffs. 
 
Frances S. Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
defendant. 
 
 
                     
 
1 Ruth Levens. 
 
 
2 Justice Duffly participated in the deliberation on this 
case prior to her retirement. 
2 
 
 
SPINA, J.  The plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the 
Land Court dismissing without prejudice their action to quiet 
title under G. L. c. 240, §§ 6-10, for lack of subject matter 
jurisdiction.3  The thrust of their action is that a railroad 
easement formerly owned by the Pennsylvania Central 
Transportation Co. (Penn Central) across portions of their lands 
was abandoned when the United States Railway Association (USRA), 
acting pursuant to the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, 
devised a final system plan which designated certain profitable 
rail lines that were to be transferred from eight bankrupt 
regional rail carriers in the northeast and the midwest regions 
of the country to the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), 
but not the rail line over the easement that encumbered their 
lands.  The plaintiffs contended that the railroad easement over 
their lands was abandoned by virtue of its nondesignation for 
transfer to Conrail in the final system plan.  The judge in the 
Land Court disagreed and concluded that a certificate of 
abandonment from the Federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) 
was necessary before a State court could exercise jurisdiction 
to determine State law claims regarding easements, and that 
STB's jurisdiction was both exclusive and primary.  The 
                     
 
3 The judgment followed a hearing on cross motions for 
summary judgment. 
3 
 
plaintiffs appealed, and we transferred the case to this court 
on our own motion.  We affirm the judgment of the Land Court. 
 
1.  Facts.  The following facts are undisputed.  Boston and 
Worcester Railroad (B&W) was created in 1831.  In 1847 it filed 
a "Plan of Location of the Newton Railroad" with the Middlesex 
County commissioners.  The easement over the plaintiffs' 
properties appears as part of the proposed railroad line 
depicted on the 1847 plan of location.  The relevant part of the 
line was known as the Newton Lower Falls Branch (branch line).  
Penn Central succeeded to the B&W interest in the branch line.  
In 1970, Penn Central filed for bankruptcy. 
 
The Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-
236, 87 Stat. 985 (1973 Act), was enacted by Congress on January 
2, 1974 and is codified at 45 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. (2012).  The 
1973 Act was designed to address the complexities arising from 
the bankruptcies of eight regional rail carriers in the 
northeast and midwest region of the country, including Penn 
Central.  See Regional R.R. Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 
102, 108 (1974) (Regional R.R. Cases).  It created Conrail, 
which would be tasked with operating railroads in the region, 
and the USRA, which was to develop a plan to determine which 
rail lines of the bankrupt railroads would be transferred to 
Conrail, and which would not.  The result of USRA's charge was 
the July 26, 1975, final system plan for restructuring railroads 
4 
 
in the northeast and midwest.  The final system plan indicates 
that the branch line in this case was not designated to be 
transferred to Conrail.  The final system plan also indicates 
that the branch line had been last used in May, 1972. 
 
An application to abandon the branch line under § 304(f) of 
the 1973 Act had been filed with USRA and was pending as of June 
26, 1975, the date of the final system plan.  A search of 
Federal records could not definitively establish whether a 
certificate of abandonment had ever issued.4  In 1976, Penn 
Central (or its successor or agent) began to remove the rails 
from the ground of the branch line.  By deed dated November 1, 
1982, and recorded with the Middlesex County South registry of 
deeds, Penn Central granted and released to the Commonwealth all 
its interest in the branch line. 
                     
 
4 That application was specifically mentioned in the final 
system plan in a table comprising a group of § 304(f) 
applications that had neither been granted nor denied.  The 
table included a comment that "[t]he disposition of those 
applications not approved by [USRA] will follow the line-
specific dispositions (contained in section A of this appendix) 
in accordance with section 304(a) of the [1973] Act.  As 
provided in this section, upon expiration of the 30-day period 
after the effective date of the Final System Plan, the Trustees 
of the applicant railroads in reorganization may give notice to 
discontinue service or to abandon the property unless someone 
offers a rail service continuation subsidy under section 
304(c)(2)(A) or offers to purchase the property under section 
304(d).  If no subsidy or purchase offer is made and the 
requirements of section 304(a) are fulfilled, the Trustees will 
be free to discontinue service 60 days after the effective date 
of notice and will be free to abandon the property 120 days 
after the effective date of discontinuance." 
5 
 
 
2.  Discussion.  Generally, before any rail line may be 
abandoned, a certificate of abandonment must be obtained from 
the appropriate Federal agency.5  From 1920 until 1995, that 
agency was the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).  See 
Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 
311, 319-320 (1981), and authorities cited (providing statutory 
history).  See also Hayfield N. R.R. v. Chicago & N.W. Transp. 
Co., 467 U.S. 622, 627-629 (1984), and authorities cited (same).  
This authority of the ICC to regulate the abandonment of rail 
lines was "exclusive and plenary."  See Chicago & N.W. Transp. 
Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., supra at 321.  In 1995, Congress 
abolished the ICC and transferred its authority to regulate the 
abandonment of rail lines to the STB.  See Interstate Commerce 
Commission Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 
803; 49 U.S.C. §§ 702, 10501, 10903 (2012).  Title 49 U.S.C. 
expressly confers exclusive authority to regulate the 
abandonment of rail lines, with certain exceptions not relevant 
to this case, upon the STB.  See 49 U.S.C. §§ 10501, 10903.  
There is no dispute here that Penn Central did not obtain a 
certificate of abandonment of the branch line from the ICC, and 
that the STB has not issued a certificate of abandonment for the 
branch line. 
                     
 
5 Abandonment includes abandonment of easements.  See 
Presault v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 494 U.S. 1, 5, 8 (1990). 
6 
 
 
An important exception to the exclusive authority of the 
ICC to regulate rail abandonments developed when, in the early 
1970s, "[a] rail transportation crisis seriously threatening the 
national welfare was precipitated when eight major railroads in 
the northeast and midwest region of the country entered 
reorganization proceedings under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 
U.S.C. § 205."  Regional R.R. Cases, 419 U.S. at 108.  Penn 
Central was one of those railroads.  "After interim measures 
proved to be insufficient, Congress concluded that solution of 
the crisis required reorganization of the railroads, stripped of 
excess facilities, into a single, viable system operated by a 
private, for-profit corporation.  Since such a system cannot be 
created under § 77 rail reorganization law, and since 
significant [F]ederal financing would be necessary to make such 
a plan workable, Congress supplemented § 77 with the [1973] 
Act. . ." (footnote omitted).  Regional R.R. Cases, 419 U.S. at 
108-109.  Under the 1973 Act the USRA was "established as a new 
government . . . corporation charged with preparing a 'Final 
System Plan' for restructuring the railroads in reorganization 
into a 'financially self-sustaining rail service system.'"  Id. 
at 111, citing 1973 Act, § 206(a), (a)(1); 45 U.S.C. § 716(a), 
(a)(1) (1970 ed. & Supp. III).  The deadline for submission of a 
proposed final system plan to Congress was 570 days after 
January 2, 1974 (by July 26, 1975), the effective date of the 
7 
 
1973 Act.  Regional R.R. Cases, supra at 112-113, citing 1973 
Act §§ 207(c), (d), 208(a); 45 U.S.C. §§ 717(c), (d), 718(a) 
(1970 ed. & Supp. III).  The final system plan designated those 
railroad assets owned by the railroads in reorganization subject 
to the 1973 Act that were to be transferred to Conrail, the 
private, for-profit corporation that also was created by the 
1973 Act to succeed the bankrupt railroads in the operation of a 
single rail company.  Regional R.R. Cases, supra at 111, citing 
1973 Act § 301(a); 45 U.S.C. § 741(a) (1970 ed. & Supp. III). 
 
Of significance to this appeal, the 1973 Act authorized the 
discontinuance of rail service and abandonment of rail 
properties (including easements) conformably with the 1973 Act, 
"notwithstanding any provision of the Interstate Commerce Act 
(49 U.S.C. [§§] 1 et seq.), or the constitution or law of any 
State or the decision of any court or administrative agency of 
the United States or of any State."  1973 Act § 304(c).  Section 
304(f) of the 1973 Act states: 
"After the date of enactment of this Act, no railroad in 
reorganization may discontinue service or abandon any line 
of railroad other than in accordance with the provisions of 
this Act, unless it is authorized to do so by the [USRA]." 
 
The plaintiffs contend that once the final system plan 
became effective, and the branch line was not designated for 
transfer to Conrail, Penn Central was free to abandon service 
and dispose of the branch line as it chose.  They rely on 
8 
 
Regional R.R. Cases, where the Supreme Court said "railroads in 
reorganization subject to the [1973] Act are free to abandon 
service and dispose as they wish of any rail properties not 
designated for transfer under the Final System Plan" (emphasis 
added).  Regional R.R. Cases, 419 U.S. at 116-117, citing 1973 
Act § 304(a)-(c); 45 U.S.C. § 744(a)-(c) (1970 ed. & Supp. III).  
What the plaintiffs ignore is that the Supreme Court's use of 
the word "free" was qualified by the citation to § 304(a)-(c) of 
the 1973 Act. 
Section 304(a) describes a procedure for discontinuance of 
service on lines not designated for transfer to Conrail under 
the final system plan.  Although USRA authorization was not 
required, trustees of a railroad in reorganization desiring to 
discontinue rail service not designated for transfer under the 
final system plan were required to give notice in writing, not 
sooner than thirty days following the effective date of the 
final system plan, of intent to discontinue such rail service on 
a date certain not less than sixty days after the date of such 
notice.  See 1973 Act § 304(a)(A)-(B).  The 1973 Act required 
such notice be "sent by certified mail to the Governor and State 
transportation agencies of each State and to the government of 
each political subdivision of each State in which such rail 
properties [were] located and to each shipper who [had] used 
9 
 
such rail service during the twelve months preceding the notice.6  
1973 Act § 304(a)(C).  There is no evidence in the record before 
us that Penn Central gave the requisite written notice. 
 
Moreover, under § 304(b) of the 1973 Act, rail properties 
over which rail service had been discontinued under § 304(a) 
could not be abandoned sooner than 120 days after the effective 
date of such discontinuance, except for reasons not relevant to 
this case.  After the passage of 120 days, the trustees could 
abandon such rail properties by giving thirty days' written 
notice to those persons and entities identified in § 304(a)(C).  
See 1973 Act § 304(b).  As applicable to this case, § 304(c) of 
the 1973 Act states:  "[n]o rail service may be discontinued and 
no rail properties may be abandoned pursuant to this section 
. . . after [two] years from the effective date of the final 
system plan."  There is no evidence in the record before us that 
Penn Central gave the requisite notice under § 304(b) for 
abandonment of the branch line. 
 
As provided in § 304(f) of the 1973 Act, abandonment could 
be obtained "other than in accordance with the provisions of 
[the 1973] Act," that is, other than under § 304(a)-(c), by 
obtaining authorization directly from USRA.  There is no 
evidence that Penn Central obtained such authorization.  Because 
there is no evidence that Penn Central abandoned the branch line 
                     
6 See note 4, supra. 
10 
 
at any time, either by obtaining a certificate of abandonment 
from the ICC or the STB, or by utilizing the procedures under 
the 1973 Act's narrow window of opportunity, the judge correctly 
determined that the question of abandonment of the branch line 
remains in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal government, 
and that the Land Court does not have subject matter 
jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' action to quiet title.7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
                     
 
7 We need not address the other issues raised by the 
plaintiffs, but it does appear that they are not without a 
remedy.  They may commence an "adverse abandonment" proceeding 
before the Surface Transportation Board.  See 49 U.S.C. 
§ 10903(a) (2012).  See Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Interstate 
Commerce Comm'n, 29 F.3d 706, 708-710 (D.C. Cir. 1994).  In any 
event, Congress did not intend for mere nonuse to determine 
whether a railroad easement should constitute abandonment and 
removal of such easement from the inventory of unused assets 
that "remain[] intact for future railroad purposes."  Presault 
v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 494 U.S. 1, 8 (1990), quoting 
H.R. Rep. No. 98-28 at 8-9 (1983).