Court Opinion

ID: 9849882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:48:37.051189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:27.772087
License: Public Domain

Judge ORR
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent on the grounds that my interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-44.2 does not divest Nelson of ownership of the property in dispute. Summary judgment for Nelson is, therefore, proper, and I would affirm the ruling of the trial court.
“When property is taken for railroad purposes, the fee remains with the owner. . . .” Sparrow v. Tobacco Co., 232 N.C. 589, 593, 61 S.E.2d 700, 703 (1950).
[W]hen land is devoted to railroad purposes it is immaterial whether the railway company acquired it by virtue of an easement, by condemnation, right-of-way deed, or other conveyance. *648If or when it ceases to be used for railway purposes, the land concerned returns to its prior status as an integral part of the free-hold to which it belonged prior to the subjection to use for railway purposes.
Harvest Queen Mill & Elevator Co. v. Sanders, 370 P.2d 419, 423 (1962). I do not believe the Legislature intended to change this result by enacting G.S. § 1-44.2, especially in light of the wording contained in subsection (b) of this statute.
Here the parties agree that the railroad right-of-way was abandoned no later than 1982 and, therefore, the railroad’s easement was extinguished. Title to the property within the easement therefore vested in the adjacent landowners extending to the centerline of the abandoned easement, in this case Nelson whose chain of title to the land extends back to 1970.
The statute in question, G.S. § 1-44.2, was passed in 1987 and specifically did not “apply to pending litigation.” 1987 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 433 § 2. Nelson thus had title vested in him when the statute was passed. I cannot imagine that the General Assembly intended for a property owner to be divested of title to land by the enactment of this statute. The prospective application of the statute is one matter, but to reach back and divest a property owner of title to land acquired by the acknowledged abandonment of railroad easement would be neither fair nor logical, and though not properly raised in this case a violation of our state and federal Constitutions.