coast railway right of way the east side of the easement runs along the west side of their property none of these owners own on the west side of the florida east coast right of way the portion of the right of way w created by a series of condemnation orders against them then owners of the property at the time the railroad was created that fact is not disputed in the court below on summary judgment the government agreed that the railroad held only an e description in one place that it was less the florida east coast railway right away and in another section a princess park the southern park that was east of the florida east coast railway right away florida law it directly on point states that that language in the legal description when referencing an easement does not operate to exclude the underlined feet from the land being conveyed rather in dane versus m o d the florida court said that absolutely or honor it said except i believe it said exactly that it is accepting accepting a strip of land off the westerly side which is the right of way of the florida east coast railroad again the dean vs m o d case the florida court had the language last and except in front of it and found that insufficient to show that the grantor had withheld the underlying theme rather that language again put the green tea on notice that there were security or rights in that land i would also notice that are not to the court that both plats which are in the record maintain the exact dimensions of the condemnation orders dating back to the original owners russo johnson piles and owens who are listed in the court below the court of federal claims help at this except east unless the railroad right away operated two ways to both or either withhold conveyance of the underlying being a state or to explicitly reserve the re correct the following view of what has happened in this case initially pretty reconsideration with the c of c this i understood standard and what the government argued is no takings has shifted that they do have like three pages at the end of their brief making the argument that the c f c adopted in the opening opinion by misunderstood what has happened now you and i think you correctly understand what the government's arguing and what the c f c helped we did introduce change of title on reconsideration the court of federal claims explicitly said i'm not going to consider those chains of title in my reconsideration and then i did  and and found without any support and again for the key holdings that the court of federal claims bases both its opinion on summary judgment and its motion for reconsideration opinion on there is no florida case law cited supporting those opinion that those holding parties but none of the land underneath the railroad court or was part of the conveyance in those days is there is still the theory that you have for why you would  or no because under the emerald equities case in florida the entire point of the centerline presumption is to get back that this was caught originally carved out of someone's property we're going to assume it was evenly carved out of the owners on the other side absent prove to the contrary  go back to the russos the original owner that's how we would prove that we have an interest in that land because in fact their chain of title does relate back to the original owner we don't have a chain a title of it all on all of these properties if this court were to conclude that we had that burden and didn't accept that under florida law which does apply here that we do not have that burden that we have made and that that burden by the presumption because we enjoy a presumption under florida law we would ask for the opportunity to go and do the title work to trace them all the way back to the beginning i think that contravenes jacksonville but different facts in that case but the issue of the strips and gore doctrine a person or doctrine is the presumption we don't want to have and and an economic remnants of property but what if it's just not clear on this record who actually losses so yes even though there is a strong principle in reading certain lands just not owned by anybody maybe just for purposes of this absolutely the court summary judgment opinion cannot stand because what the court summary judgment opinion found was that the government had affirmatively rebutted to presumption that our owners or entitled to the presumption that they own the land underneath the condemned portion of the right of way  thereby saying that there's no way our owners could own it and be in their th amendment claims for compensation if the court believes it's unclear and that the center and that we don't enjoy that presumption then remained would be possible to further develop the factual record we could pull change the title for everyone again though i would point to florida courts explicitly in jacksonville said the very point of the presumption of this so that every case we don't have to doraine or prove title back to the original owner we certainly can do that  honors i would point to the fact that in the again in that court a federal claims opinion on the key holdings that it bases its opinion on there is not one single florida case cited to support the holding that the language accept less than and east of the florida east coast rail and right away would operate either to reserve any interest in the grant to war or to or to indicate that that the estate was not conveyed in the grant and in fact no more you're quoting are a lot of other  don't want to give you the opportunity to give us those for florida case cites on page one of the great brief the landowners say if the government's arguments were correct one would expect you to cite least one florida case in which the owners and by the way the district or the court in which the owners of parcels embody and abandoned right away were denied ownership of the underlying land because somewhere in their chain of title there were document records describing earlier conveniences made quote subject to last or accept new close quote the right way but you does not because no such case exist so of can the government give it's such  then the plane it's proceed decide a list of cases in which ownership of the fee the railroad wasn't a spewed so the question is is there are a case under florida law that says one dollar way of the other what a subdivision on or has to say in his platt to indicate that he doesn't owe and a particular strip of land and the answer is no so commonsense principles apply plain language of lie so let's take to z in a garden clad some let's keep in mind too it's important keep in mind it summary judgment the only evidence what they house in that against all and i have read it as a whole bunch of whole bunch of florida cases and my pretty strong impression correct me if i were wrong he's at that's a kind of language that would be pretty sensibly lesson except and easement this doesn't say less an exception is also there are of course there are clearer ways to say it but the question is what do you do with a language that says accept a strip of land which is a right and then there's one now and you get to that argument in the last few pages you're preaching now have the argument that i think was developed only on reconsideration which is by the time the plat was written a class forty seven in november forty nine these people didn't own this at all well yet how do you make that argument while simultaneously saying that the material submitted on reconsideration should not be considered because the plaque tells us what the the borrower's in the mosses own at the time they plotted to subdivisions and both the narrative and the plot and the other markings in the plot indicate that they did not own the red card and that is why they didn't include it in the plot everyone here agrees that the planet subdivisions don't include the r honor the court briefly noted that the plants had simply assumed that they owned it and presented no supporting evidence and then proceeded to d address the nd and separate question of whether the carter was included in the conveyance so your honor is correct hold explicitly other than that notation i just said did not base her holding on a lack of ownership in the st instance but we made that point in our initial summary judgment brief albeit briefly and you can infer them on any basis it's supported by the record and no one has argued that we forfeited that argument so in fact the forfeiture argument is forfeit so that issue is precisely for the court dispositive and it's dispositive based on the evidence that was before the court at summary judgment the longer phrases including excluding the strip of land which is the right of way correct ok but what we're saying is that all you can count on that yes pretty significant that's troubling you but i would say if you get even more significance that they specified the strip how would one know what land they were referring to the right so that inclusion of the right of ways to clarify that will talk the strip of land that's excluded from our ownership no no you're turning it on its head that that's what the that's the whole your whole argument is that  hey we're conveying this property but we don't want to be sued so we need to tell you that there's an easement over this property that seems to me to be where they're going with that language well that in any case right supposing they do nothing with that they just say we're conveying this piece of land less than that easement property but by the way as a matter of law you know and we know that if the easement goes away honor the but they didn't say that and i would i would say that dean the law is no longer right but there's nothing in florida law that says if i described my ownership as excluding a strip of land it means that i own the strip of land what else could there possibly s indicate that they didn't own the strip of land that was excluded from the description of the land that they own and it's important to contrast that with lehman you know what they could have said for one thing they could have skipped the which is the right of way for two different things and i don't really understand that i guess i would have thought that they both the south articulate exactly the same thing which is that when you have a land grant with a  be overcome about where the one dimensional boundary is and i don't understand why you think there is in the daylight between those two cases well there's a there's a really big difference actually here are the st is not the jacksonville expression is simply a presumption of ownership you're presumed to own the middle of a roadway simply by virtue of owning the chase and what nd if the boundary is one of these natural thing so the rule applies only if you don't own it it doesn't say anything about who has the burden of the stablish in one way or the other well it and i would have thought that in eighty eight like the kind of thing that's in smith if you want to know who owns it back in history to the transactions that either it or did not give it to the later grant or and in that city in this situation those documents themselves are subject to very same  rule which because they have boundaries minute boundaries so i just don't see what the daylight is between these two well the smith version makes clear that sets off by a comma that the presumption is that says how do we know they they they only own these things if somebody is questioning it go back to where that the ownership came from and those are subject to the very same  issue separate from the ownership issue whether the road susan moss is intended to convey we pointed out that they did not intend to convey precisely because they exclude the rail car from the play so it makes no sense to say that someone who buys a lot  honors i would like to st address the government's assertion that everyone here agrees that the railroad was not part of the plant the pellets in no way agree that the railroad was not part of the platte st and most obvious the railroad is on the platte the railroad itself is pictured on the plat and actually very specific dimensions including those exact dimensions of the condemnation orders are on the plat mr carville's i think said briefly at least in the government's any part of the real quarter his st is it true and if so what did you say response to that not what do you say your honor i would have to go back and look at the briefing but we always maintained that they owned it because they were the predecessor the successors and interest to the original condominiums and that case the the language i believe the governments always agreed on is this accept less then and honor i would just in conclusion say that on this record the government has not produced any evidence to rebut the clear presumption of florida law that these owners own the land underneath those condemned portions of the right of way and we ask for this coursework court reversed the c opinion and remand this for future proceedings to determine just compensation thank you thank you can