## Facts

- Kansas landowners, including the Anna F. Nordhus Family Trust, owned property underlying or adjacent to an 8.13-mile railroad corridor.
- A predecessor railroad interest (later held by Union Pacific) crossed the properties under a right-of-way granted for railroad operations.
- Union Pacific discontinued rail service and pursued abandonment of the line.
- A trail sponsor sought interim trail use under the National Trails System Act, and the Surface Transportation Board issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) on December 15, 2003.
- The landowners alleged that, under Kansas law, once the corridor ceased being used for railway purposes, the right-of-way easement would terminate and the land would return to the adjoining fee estates.
- The landowners claimed the NITU and railbanking regime prevented that reversion and authorized non-rail trail use, taking their property interests without just compensation.

## Issues

1. Under Kansas law, did the railroad hold a right-of-way easement limited to railway purposes such that cessation of railway use would terminate the easement and cause the corridor to revert to the fee owners?
2. Did the STB’s NITU, by precluding abandonment-related reversion and permitting interim trail use subject to potential future rail service, effect a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment?
3. Was recreational trail use within the scope of a Kansas easement granted for “railway purposes,” or did it impose a new burden on the landowners’ property interests?

## Decision

- The Court of Federal Claims granted the landowners’ motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the government’s cross-motion.
- The court held that, under Kansas law, railroads generally hold an easement for railway purposes rather than fee simple title in right-of-way strips; when railway use ceases, the burden ends and the corridor returns to the fee owners.
- The court held that the NITU and Trails Act railbanking process effected a taking by blocking the landowners’ reversionary interests that would otherwise have vested under Kansas law and by authorizing interim trail use beyond the easement’s rail-purpose scope.
- The decision resolved liability only; just compensation was left for later proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- State property law determines the nature and scope of the property interests affected in a Trails Act takings claim.
- In Kansas, a railroad right-of-way across a narrow corridor is generally an easement limited to railway purposes, not fee simple ownership; upon cessation of railway use, the easement terminates and the underlying fee becomes unburdened.
- A Trails Act NITU that prevents consummation of abandonment and thereby prevents state-law reversion can constitute a taking of the landowners’ reversionary interests.
- Authorizing interim recreational trail use can be a compensable taking where the original easement is limited to railway purposes and trail use exceeds that scope.
- The Trails Act may validly operate as a federal program, but when its operation appropriates or burdens private property interests recognized under state law, the United States must pay just compensation.

## Conclusion

The court held that Kansas landowners were entitled to establish liability for a Fifth Amendment taking because the STB’s NITU, issued under the Trails Act, prevented the termination and reversion of a rail-purpose easement under Kansas law and authorized interim trail use that exceeded the easement’s scope; the case proceeded to determine compensation.


Anna F. Nordhus Family Trust v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 331 (Fed. Cl. 2011)