## Facts

- Missouri landowners owned fee simple interests in parcels burdened by Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company (MKT) rights-of-way.
- Under Missouri law, the rights-of-way were treated as easements limited to “railroad purposes,” not fee simple ownership of the corridor.
- Under Missouri law, proper abandonment of a railroad easement extinguishes the easement and the corridor reverts to the underlying fee owners.
- MKT sought and obtained federal authorization to discontinue the line under the federal regulatory process rather than consummating abandonment solely under state law.
- Pursuant to the National Trails System Act amendments, the corridor was railbanked and converted to interim recreational trail use, preserving the possibility of future rail reactivation.
- MKT transferred its interest in the corridor to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) for $200,000 and removed the track; MDNR operated a recreational trail on the corridor.
- The landowners sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that federal railbanking and trail conversion prevented reversion and imposed a new easement, requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Missouri property law, railroad easements limited to “railroad purposes” include interim recreational trail use and railbanking.
2. Whether federal authorization of railbanking and interim trail use that prevents state-law abandonment and reversion effects a taking of the landowners’ property interests requiring just compensation.

## Decision

- The court held that, under Missouri law, railbanking and recreational trail use are not “railroad purposes” and fall outside the scope of the railroad easements.
- The court held that the federal railbanking/trail-use authorization prevented state-law reversion and imposed a new burden on the landowners’ property.
- The court concluded that the United States effected a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.
- The court granted summary judgment for the landowners on liability; compensation was left for later determination.

## Legal Principles

- State property law defines the nature and scope of the railroad’s interest in a right-of-way (fee versus easement) and the permitted uses of that interest.
- Under Missouri law, an easement for “railroad purposes” does not authorize conversion of the corridor to recreational trail use or indefinite preservation for potential future rail use through railbanking.
- When federal railbanking and interim trail-use authorization precludes abandonment and extinguishment of the railroad easement that would otherwise occur under state law, the federal action can take the landowners’ reversionary interests.
- Federal takings liability may attach even if a non-federal entity operates the trail, when the federal regulatory action is the legal cause of the continued encumbrance and non-rail use.

## Conclusion

The court held that, because Missouri railroad easements limited to “railroad purposes” did not permit railbanking and recreational trail use, the federal rail-to-trails action that prevented abandonment and reversion imposed a new servitude on the landowners’ property and constituted a compensable taking, entitling the landowners to proceed to valuation of just compensation.


Glosemeyer v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 771 (Fed. Cl. 2000)