Opinion ID: 1298358
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: hitchcock county right-of-way

Text: We first address Whipps' claims regarding the property inside the Hitchcock County right-of-way. We begin this analysis on the most fundamental level: What, if any, interest does Whipps have in the property inside the right-of-way? Answering this question requires two separate determinations. We must first determine the scope of the railroad right-of-waywhat it included and what interest remained in the grantor, the United States. Second, we must determine whether any interest that remained in the United States still remains with the United States or if that interest was subsequently transferred by the United States to Whipps' predecessor in title. The scope of BNSF's right-of-way is a matter of federal law. It is important to understand, at the outset, that while the vocabulary of the common law of real property is often imported into the discussion of railroad rights-of-way, where those rights-of-way have been created by federal law, they are entirely creatures of federal statute, and their scope and duration are determined, not by common-law principles, but by the relevant statutory provisions. See, Brown v. State, 130 Wash.2d 430, 924 P.2d 908 (1996); Puett v. Western Pacific Railroad, 104 Nev. 17, 752 P.2d 213 (1988). The Hitchcock County right-of-way was created by virtue of the General Railroad Right of Way Act of 1875 (hereinafter 1875 Act), 43 U.S.C. § 934 et seq. (2000). In State of Idaho v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 617 F.Supp. 207 (D.Idaho 1985), the court discussed the history of the 1875 Act. From 1850 to 1871, Congress subsidized railroad construction through large grants of public lands. Great Northern Railroad Co. v. United State s, 315 U.S. 262, 263, 62 S.Ct. 529, 533, 86 L.Ed. 836 (1942). In 1871, Congress, with a finger to the prevailing winds of public opinion, changed this policy and discontinued outright grants of land to railroads. Id. Congress, however, still intended railroads to have exclusive use and possession of railroad rights-of-way. This may be inferred from the continued use of the term right-of-way in the 1875 Act and from the fact that railroads must have exclusive use of their rights-of-way in order to function. The term right-of-way, in the context of railroad property interests, is a term of art signifying an interest in land which entitles the railroad to the exclusive use and occupancy in such land.... Because exclusive use and occupancy are not rights comprised within the traditional definition of an easement, definitional problems later arose in describing the nature of the railroad's interest in its right-of-way. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 617 F.Supp. at 210. From 1871 to 1875, Congress dealt with railroad rights-of-way on an individualized basis. Id. Congress then passed the 1875 Act, which provided, in relevant part, that [t]he right of way through the public lands of the United States is granted to any railroad company duly organized under the laws of any State or Territory ... to the extent of one hundred feet on each side of the central line of said road. See § 934. The operative language of the 1875 Act was virtually identical to that of most or all of the pre-1871 acts. Oregon Short Line R. Co., supra . It is clear that the 1875 Act was not intended to grant a fee interest to railroads. Oregon Short Line R. Co., supra . The nature of the interest conveyed, however, was subject to some confusion. The result of early U.S. Supreme Court decisions was a concept of `limited fee with an implied condition of reverter.' Oregon Short Line R. Co., 617 F.Supp. at 210, citing Northern Pacific Ry. v. Townsend, 190 U.S. 267, 23 S.Ct. 671, 47 L.Ed. 1044 (1903). The concept of a limited fee was probably applied because under the common law of real property, an easement was an incorporeal hereditament which did not give an exclusive right of possession. See State of Wyoming v. Udall, 379 F.2d 635 (10th Cir.1967). As the meaning of the term easement expanded, in the context of railroads, to include the right in perpetuity to exclusive use and possession of the land, the limited fee concept disappeared. See id. By 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court modified its understanding of rights-of-way under the 1875 Act and held that the rights-of-way were only easements and not fee interests. See Great Northern Ry. Co. v. U.S., 315 U.S. 262, 62 S.Ct. 529, 86 L.Ed. 836 (1942). Given the foregoing, the Oregon Short Line R. Co. court reached the following conclusions: Congress, in granting the 1875 Act rights-of-way, did not intend to convey to the railroads a fee interest in the underlying lands. Congress did, however, intend to give the railroads an interest suitable for railroad purposesa right-of-way, which, by definition, carried with it the right to exclusive use and occupancy of the land. 617 F.Supp. at 212. See, also, Simacek v. York County Rural P.P. Dist., 220 Neb. 484, 370 N.W.2d 709 (1985). Applied to the instant case, we similarly conclude that BNSF's right-of-way, when created, was an easement as explained above, with a reversionary interest in the United States should the right-of-way cease to be used for railroad purposes. Having concluded that the United States retained an interest in the property subject to the right-of-way, we must now determine what happened to that interest when the United States conveyed the Hitchcock County property to Whipps' predecessors in title. Courts are divided on that question. However, the prevailing view is that the underlying interest in active rights-of-way is held by the United States, and not by the adjacent landowner. Pertinent to this determination is the specific provision made by the U.S. Congress for abandoned railroad rights-of-way. In 1922, Congress enacted 43 U.S.C. § 912 (2000), which provides in relevant part that when a railroad right-of-way is abandoned, all right, title, interest, and estate of the United States in said lands shall ... be transferred to and vested in any person, firm, or corporation, assigns, or successors in title and interest to whom or to which title of the United States may have been or may be granted. Excepted, however, are any lands on which a public highway is established within 1 year of the abandonment of the right-of-way and the mineral rights in the land, which are reserved in the United States. See id. Furthermore, if the right-of-way runs through a municipality, the municipality acquires the federal interest, regardless of whether it has title to the adjacent fee. See, id.; Buckley v. Burlington Northern, 106 Wash.2d 581, 723 P.2d 434 (1986). Of the few courts to have directly considered disposition of reversionary interests created under the 1875 Act, most have determined that § 912 applies to rights-of-way created pursuant to the 1875 Act. See, Marshall v. Chicago and Northwestern Transp. Co., 31 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir. 1994); Vieux v. East Bay Regional Park Dist., 906 F.2d 1330 (9th Cir.1990); State of Idaho v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 617 F.Supp. 207 (D.Idaho 1985); Barney v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 490 N.W.2d 726 (S.D.1992). But see City of Aberdeen v. Chicago & North Transp., 602 F.Supp. 589 (D.S.D.1984). This Court has the obligation to interpret § 912 ... in such a way to fully effectuate congressional intent: These statutes would be rendered null if this Court were to find them inapplicable to 1875 Act rights-of-way, for they were specifically enacted to dispose of the United States' retained interest in 1875 Act rights-of-way. See [H.R.Rep. No. 217, 67th Cong., 1st Sess. 1 (1921); H.R.Rep. No. 843, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1920)]. In enacting these statutes, Congress clearly felt that it had some retained interest in railroad rights-of-way. The precise nature of that retained interest need not be shoe-horned into any specific category cognizable under the rules of real property law.... [C]ongressional committeemen in the early 1920's spoke of this retained interest in terms of an `implied condition of reverter.' Regardless of the precise nature of this interest, Congress clearly believed that it had authority over 1875 Act railroad rights-of-way. [Section 912] evince[s] an intent to ensure that railroad rights-of-way would continue to be used for public transportation purposes, primarily for highway transportation.... In conclusion, the Court finds that [§ 912] appl[ies] to 1875 Act rights-of-way. Marshall, 31 F.3d at 1032, quoting Oregon Short Line R. Co., supra . Accord Barney, supra . Even if the 1875 Act granted only an easement, as opposed to a higher right-of-way interest, Congress had authority, by virtue of its broad power over interstate commerce, to grant such easements subject to its own terms and conditionswhich were to preserve a corridor of public transportation, particularly the railroad transportation, in order to facilitate the development of the Western vastness. Congress could pre-empt or override common-law rules regarding easements, reversions, or other traditional real property interests. In other words, even if the 1875 Act granted only an easement, it does not necessarily follow that Congress would or did not intend to retain an interest in that easement. This is consistent with another well-settled rule of statutory construction which provides that conveyances by the Government will be strictly interpreted against the grantee and in favor of the grantor. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 617 F.Supp. at 212. Simply put, the above-cited courts have concluded that if the United States' retained interest in a railroad right-of-way was conveyed to the United States' successor in title along with the adjacent fee, then Congress would not have needed to enact § 912 to transfer that interest upon abandonment of the right-of-way. Furthermore, § 912 could not, as it purports, transfer that interest to anyone other than the adjacent feeholder, such as states or municipalities, nor could the United States reserve the mineral estate to itself. A court may, in order to ascertain the proper meaning of a statute, refer to later as well as earlier legislation upon the same subject. See Wagoner v. Central Platte Nat. Resources Dist., 247 Neb. 233, 526 N.W.2d 422 (1995). All existing acts should be considered, and a subsequent statute may often aid in the interpretation of a prior one. Id. Based upon that principle of statutory construction, courts have relied upon § 912 to support the conclusion that pursuant to federal statute, rights-of-way created pursuant to the 1875 Act reserved reversionary interests in the United States that have not been subsequently conveyed as part of the adjacent fee. See, Marshall v. Chicago and Northwestern Transp. Co., 31 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir.1994); Vieux v. East Bay Regional Park Dist., 906 F.2d 1330 (9th Cir.1990); State of Idaho v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 617 F.Supp. 207 (D.Idaho 1985); Barney v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 490 N.W.2d 726 (S.D.1992). On matters of federal law, the decisions of federal courts are highly persuasive, particularly where federal legislative history and the interpretation of federal statutes are at issue. We are persuaded by the reasoning of the 9th and 10th Circuits, set forth above, and likewise conclude that § 912 applies to rights-of-way created pursuant to the 1875 Act and that the import of § 912 is that the United States retains all reversionary interests in such rights-of-way until the United States disposes of those interests as provided by law. Returning to the circumstances of the instant case, we note that there is no suggestion, or support in the record, for a finding that the Hitchcock County right-of-way has been abandoned within the meaning of § 912. In fact, the record indicates that the railroad is still operating in the right-of-way. Therefore, we conclude that any reversionary interest in the Hitchcock County right-of-way is still possessed by the United States. Obviously, if Whipps has no interest in the land inside the right-of-way, then Whipps has no claim for relief with respect to any incursion onto that land. Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Soukop v. ConAgra, Inc., 264 Neb. 1015, 653 N.W.2d 655 (2002). In this case, there was no genuine issue of material fact, and Level 3 was entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding the Hitchcock County right-of-way because Whipps had no rights in that property. On that basis, we reject Whipps' first assignment of error and affirm the district court's entry of summary judgment against Whipps with respect to property inside the Hitchcock County right-of-way.