Opinion ID: 848649
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that plaintiff is entitled to summary disposition. The limited easement owned by plaintiff's predecessor in interest had been abandoned by the time the predecessor purported to sell that property interest to plaintiff. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the matter to the trial court for entry of summary disposition in defendant's favor. CLIFFORD W. TAYLOR, MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, ELIZABETH A. WEAVER, MAURA D. CORRIGAN, and STEPHEN J. MARKMAN, JJ., concur. MARILYN J. KELLY, J. (dissenting). I agree with the majority's conclusion that plaintiff's property interest is an easement rather than a fee simple. However, I conclude that this Court should not find that the easement was abandoned. Defendant has not shown that plaintiff's predecessor, the Soo Line Railroad Company, completed the federal regulatory process for abandonment. Therefore, it appears that the rail line remains under the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board [1] for future reinstatement of service. If that is the case, defendant may not circumvent federal jurisdiction by obtaining a state court judgment of abandonment. Even if abandonment of the line were consummated with the ICC, we should conclude that the Soo Line never abandoned the underlying easement before conveying it to plaintiff for a trail. The mere fact of the sale demonstrates that the Soo Line intended to retain dominion over the easement until disposing of it. If the company believed in 1982 that it was abandoning this property interest, it would not have sold a portion of it to plaintiff in 1985. Moreover, the parties who originally created the easement did not intend to limit its use to a rail line. Rather, they created a right-of-way to last forever, one that can be used today as a recreational trail. Therefore, the result reached by the trial court and the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.