Title: State v. Preseault

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_PRESEAULT.93-607; 163 Vt 38; 652 A.2d 1001

[Filed 10-Nov-1994]

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press. 


                           No. 93-607


State of Vermont, et al.                  Supreme Court

                                           On Appeal from
     v.                                    Chittenden Superior Court

J. Paul Preseault, et al.                 September Term, 1994


Matthew I. Katz, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and John K. Dunleavy, Assistant
 Attorney General,   Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee State of Vermont 

John T. Leddy of McNeil, Leddy & Sheehan, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee
 City of Burlington 

Paul R. Bowles of Hill, Unsworth, Barra & Myers, Montpelier, for defendant-
 appellant 


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

     DOOLEY, J.   Defendants J. Paul Preseault, Patricia Preseault, and 985
Associates, Ltd. appeal the decision of the Chittenden Superior Court
granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, the State of Vermont and the
City of Burlington.  Defendants also appeal the court's issuance of a
permanent injunction enjoining them from interfering or encroaching on
property currently maintained by plaintiffs.  We affirm. 

     This appeal represents another chapter in defendants' on-going attempt
to reclaim their purported reversionary interest in a railroad right-of-way
adjacent to their property in the City of Burlington.  In 1962, the State of
Vermont acquired the railroad right-of-way at issue from one railroad
company, and subsequently leased it to another.  In 1975, this company
discontinued rail service for the portion of track abutting defendants'
property, and removed all existing railroad equipment. 

     In 1981, defendants brought a quiet title action alleging that the
railroad company's 

 

easement had been abandoned, and title to the land in the right of way had
reverted back to them.  The trial court dismissed the action holding that the
matter was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal Interstate
Commerce Commission (ICC), and we affirmed.  Trustees of Diocese of Vermont
v. State, 145 Vt. 510,