Court Opinion

ID: 9917305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 21:12:57.857441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:15.776507
License: Public Domain

Vermont Superior Court
                                                                                                         Filed 01/10 24
                                                                                                          Caledonia nit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT                                     1
                                                          ﬂ4                       CIVIL DIVISION
Caledonia Unit                                                                  Case N0. 23-CV-04992
1126 Main Street Suite 1
St. JohnsburyVT 05819
802-748-6600                                        EE
wwwvermontjudiciaryorg

              D. R. Ring Memorial Trust v. Vermont Agency of Transportation

                             ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title:           Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Motion: 2)
Filer:           Harold B. Stevens, III
Filed Date:      December 01, 2023

The motion is DENIED.

        The Court held a hearing on Plaintiff Ring’s motion for a preliminary injunction motion. At
the hearing, the Agency of Transportation had Jonathan Grifﬁn, the project manager in the

Vermont Agency of Transportation’s Structures Division testiﬁed about the current status of the

project. Grifﬁn stated that bridge construction had been completed and that the remaining site
work will be completed by approximatelyJanuary 6, 2024. After this date, the Agency and their
contractors will be removing their vehicles and equipment from the site. There is some additional

site work on the rail trail restoration project that will be performed in the area over the next two

weeks, but it will not involve entry onto Plaintiff Ring’s lands. Grifﬁn further stated that there were
some areas of erosion on the portions of the trail that runs across Ring’s lands that the Agency

intends to address in the next construction season when the weather will allow grass and vegetation

to grow.

        Plaintiff does not dispute Grifﬁn’s characterization of the status of construction or the
timeline laid out by Grifﬁn. Instead, Ring raised two general categories of objections. The ﬁrst can

be classiﬁed as objections to the quality of the project and construction choices. Ring stated that in

his professional opinion the Agency removed a damaged, but still largely intact, bridge and replaced

it with a lighter structure that cannot carry as much weight and will not be as resilient. The other

objection that Ring raised concerned points of access. Grifﬁn stated that the abutment of the bridge
had been moved back to create a “cow crossing” under the bridge that is approximately 10 feet in

height. Grifﬁn testiﬁed that this new cow crossing was a better crossing than previously existed and
Entry Regarding Motion                                                                   Page 1 of 5
23—CV—04992 D. R. Ring Memorial Trust v. Vermont Agency of Transportation
had improved Ring’s ability to access his property. Ring has not confirmed this height and
expressed some skepticism about the crossing. Ring also raised an issue about another at-grade-
crossing that he claims has been promised but unfulfilled for the better part of 20 years. Nothing in
this construction project appears to have altered this situation.

Preliminary Injunction

           “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (quoted in Taylor v. Town of Cabot, 2017 VT 92, ¶ 19).
In reviewing a motion for a preliminary injunction, the moving party bears the burden of
establishing each element of a preliminary injunction claim and demonstrating that each factor
warrants the imposition of a preliminary injunction. Taylor, 2017 VT 92, at ¶ 19.

           The elements of a preliminary injunction under Vermont law include: “(1) the threat of
irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the potential harm to the other parties; (3) the likelihood of
success on the merits; and (4) the public interest.” Id. (quoting In re J.G., 160 Vt. 250, 255 n.2
(1993)).

           The issue of irreparable harm nearly always rests on the issue of money. If the moving party
has an adequate remedy in the form of money damages or other relief, then a preliminary injunction
should be denied. Taylor, 2017 VT 92, at ¶ 40 (citing C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE
& PROCEDURE § 2948.1 (3d ed. 2017)). In this case, the testimony of the parties indicates two
things. First, there is no immediate or irreparable harm. The work of the Agency is largely
completed, and the Agency will be removing its equipment from the site in a few days. The
resulting trail occupies largely the same footprint as the prior railroad, and the one issue that Ring
identified with his property, namely the claimed at-grade crossing, has been disputed for more than
20 years. Its absence is neither anything new or the result of the State’s rail trail project. This is not
to say that Ring is without remedy, but it is not an immediate and irreparable harm.

           Based on the testimony and the filing, the Court finds no threat of irreparable harm that
would justify the imposition of a preliminary injunction.

           Looking to the potential harm to the Agency and the State, the Court finds that there is a
threat of significant harm. The State has invested millions of dollars into the Lamoille Rail Trail
project, and it represents one of the most significant public works investments in the area over the

Entry Regarding Motion                                                                        Page 2 of 5
23-CV-04992 D. R. Ring Memorial Trust v. Vermont Agency of Transportation
past decade. It is part of a network that allows the public recreational access across the northern
part of the state has both public benefit and economic impacts. Given this important public
recreational function, the Court recognizes that any injunction that would impinge on this public
work would have to be substantially justified.

        As to Plaintiff’s likelihood of success, the Court raised issues in its initial order based on the
nature of rights of re-entry and possibilities of reverter that must be present for a Court to consider
the cessation of a public grant. See Collette v. Town of Charlotte, 114 Vt. 357, 359–63 (1946); University
of Vermont and State Agricultural College v. Ward, 104 Vt. 239, 158 A. 773, 776 (1932) (discussing the
need for either right of re—entry or possibility of reverter to terminate an interest in land, even if
the grant is conditional). In Plaintiff’s initial filings, the Court did not see such language in the key
deeds that were submitted. Plaintiff has indicated that he has done additional deed research and that
some of the documents have covenants and obligations that he believes will satisfy the Court’s
concerns. These documents, however, are not before the Court, and the Court cannot take notice
of them from Plaintiff’s representations. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims that the rail trail voids the deeds
and reverts the land to him is without factual or legal foundation sufficient to establish a likelihood
of success at this point.

        Beyond these issues, however, the State has raised additional issues under 16 U.S.C. §
1247(d) and the 2004 actions by the federal Surface Transportation Board authorizing the rail line
for railbanking and interim trail use. See Lamoille Valley R.R. Co.—Abandonment and Discontinuance--In
Caledonia, Washington, Orleans, Lamoille, and Franklin Counties, VT, STB Docket No. AB-444 Sub-No.
1X (STB served Feb. 13, 2004). The decisions and statutes raise a legal question of whether this
Court has jurisdiction, and whether Plaintiff has standing to raise these issues. While these issues are
primarily the subject of the Agency’s pending Motion to Dismiss, they cast significant doubt at this
stage of the litigation. Instead of an issue of deed interpretation and rights of re-entry, the Agency’s
arguments show that there is an entire federal regime of laws and administrative process that may
have exclusive jurisdiction over the issues that Plaintiff’s seeks to raise and may preclude precisely
the arguments that Plaintiff seeks to raise.

        Based on these legal issues, the Court finds that there is no sufficient showing of likelihood
of success on the merits to sustain or justify an injunction at this time.

Entry Regarding Motion                                                                         Page 3 of 5
23-CV-04992 D. R. Ring Memorial Trust v. Vermont Agency of Transportation
        Lastly, there is the issue of public interest. This is often the most difficult element, and in
this case, an argument could be made that there is a public interest in the recreational benefit of a
rail trail, but there is an equal public interest in good government and upholding constitutional
values such as the right to just compensation for governmental takings. Plaintiff also notes that his
actions are motivated to protect and preserve his properties, which are rich, agricultural lands
adjacent to a river. There are numerous provisions demonstrating the State’s interest in preserving
and protecting agricultural lands, which reflect a broad public interest in the working landscape of
the state. As such, the Court finds that there are compelling values that can be arrayed on both sides
in favor of the public interest and that would auger either for or against an injunction in the right
circumstances. While this element might support an injunction established on other grounds, these
policy points are not sufficient to establish one where there is no evidence of irreparable harm or
likelihood of success on the merits, and where the impact to the State’s interest, which is by
extension an interest in the commonweal, has the potential to suffer significant harm.

                                                  ORDER

        Based on the foregoing, the Court finds insufficient grounds and basis for a preliminary
injunction, which is denied. Plaintiff Ring shall have until February 4, 2024 to respond to the
Agency of Transportation’ s pending motion to dismiss.

Electronically signed on 1/5/2024 10:45 AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

__________________________________
Daniel Richardson
Superior Court Judge

Electronically signed pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

John S. Hall
Assistant Superior Court Judge

Entry Regarding Motion                                                                        Page 4 of 5
23-CV-04992 D. R. Ring Memorial Trust v. Vermont Agency of Transportation
Electronically signed pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

____________________
Merle L. Haskins
Assistant Superior Court Judge

Entry Regarding Motion                                                      Page 5 of 5
23-CV-04992 D. R. Ring Memorial Trust v. Vermont Agency of Transportation