Case Title: Preseault v. City of Burlington, VT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-07-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Preseault v. City of Burlington (2005-236); 180 Vt. 597; 908 A.2d 419

2006 VT 63

[Filed 11-Jul-2006]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 18-Aug-2006]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 63

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-236

                              MARCH TERM, 2006


  J. Paul Preseault and Patricia     }           APPEALED FROM:
  Preseault, Individually and as     }
  Partners 985 Associates, Ltd.      }
                                     ]
       v.                            }           Original Jurisdiction
                                     }  
  City of Burlington, Vermont and    }
  State of Vermont                   }           DOCKET NO.  04-1154-cv


             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  In this litigation, plaintiffs J. Paul Preseault and Patricia
  Preseault seek to prevent defendant City of Burlington from adding a fiber
  optic line to existing utility poles and lines that run through their
  property along a recreation path and former railroad right-of-way.  In
  response to a certified question accepted from the United States Court of
  Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to V.R.A.P. 14, we conclude that
  the provisions of 30 V.S.A. §§ 2513-2514 confer rights in the nature of a
  common-law easement with respect to allowing the placement of utility lines
  along  rights-of-way no longer used for railway services.  Accordingly, we
  answer the certified question in the affirmative.

       ¶  2.  The material facts relevant to this case are not in dispute. 
  The City of Burlington owns and operates a municipal electric utility that
  has maintained utility poles since the 1950s within an historic railroad
  right-of-way that crosses the Preseaults' property.  In 2002, the City
  began a telecommunications project that involved installing approximately
  sixteen and one-half miles of fiber optic cable for the transmission of
  video, voice, and data services, including cable television service, to
  connect city-owned buildings and facilities.  As part of the project, the
  City installed a fiber optic cable along the utility poles abutting the
  Preseaults' property, as permitted by a Public Service Board rule allowing
  licensed entities access to utility poles.  The cable is located several
  feet below the crossbars that hold the preexisting lines.

       ¶  3.  The Preseaults filed a complaint in federal district court,
  asserting that the installation of the cable was an unlawful taking that
  violated their constitutional rights.  The district court dismissed the
  complaint, ruling that 30 V.S.A. §§ 2513-2515 unequivocally granted the
  City a right to install the fiber optic cable on existing utility poles. 
  The Preseaults appealed, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified
  to this Court the following question, which we accepted for review: "Are
  the City's rights under section 2514, which remained following the
  abandonment of the railroad easement pursuant to Proctor, in the nature of
  a common law easement, or limited to maintaining the lines that existed
  prior to the abandonment?"  Preseault v. City of Burlington, 412 F.3d 96,
  102 (2d Cir. 2005).

       ¶  4.  As the Second Circuit noted, "[t]he present lawsuit follows
  more than 20 years of litigation over the Preseaults' ownership and right
  to exclusive possession of land that once had been subject to the railroad
  easement."  Id. at 98.  A summary of the historical background and various
  proceedings between the parties is helpful in understanding the current
  dispute.  In 1899, pursuant to an act of the Vermont Legislature, the
  Rutland-Canadian Railroad Company acquired a right-of-way to operate a
  railway line on lands that included property owned by the Preseaults'
  predecessors-in-title.  In 1962, defendant State of Vermont acquired the
  railroad right-of-way from one railroad company and leased it to another,
  which continued to operate a railway line.  In the 1970s, the railroad
  discontinued rail service on the land abutting the Preseaults' property and
  removed all existing track and railroad equipment.  In 1981, the Preseaults
  brought a quiet title action in the superior court alleging that the
  railroad's easement had been abandoned, and that title to the right-of-way
  had reverted back to them.  The court dismissed the action, holding that
  the matter was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal Interstate
  Commerce Commission (ICC), and we affirmed.  See Trustees of Diocese of Vt.
  v. State, 145 Vt. 510, 515,