## Facts

- In 1916, Epworth Assembly conveyed four strips of land across its resort property to Ludington & Northern Railway to construct and operate a railroad line.
- Three deeds stated the land was conveyed “for railroad purposes only”; a fourth deed added that if railroad use ceased “for one year or longer,” the land would revert to Epworth.
- The railroad operated for decades, but train service stopped after 1981.
- The railroad continued to maintain the track and right-of-way and did not formally abandon the line.
- Epworth asserted the deeds’ railroad-purpose language and the cessation clause caused the strips to revert, and it began making improvements and uses consistent with ownership.
- In 1988, the railroad sought a declaratory judgment to determine the parties’ property interests; the trial court ruled for the railroad, concluding it held a fee interest and that any reversionary rights were extinguished by Michigan law.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1916 deeds conveyed a fee estate to the railroad or merely an easement limited to railroad use.
2. Whether Epworth retained an enforceable possibility of reverter or right of entry, or whether Michigan statutes extinguished those future interests.
3. Whether cessation of train operations and related conduct established abandonment sufficient to divest the railroad of its interest.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for the railroad.
- The deeds conveyed a fee interest to the railroad, not merely an easement, despite “for railroad purposes only” language.
- Any possibility of reverter or right of entry retained by Epworth was extinguished under Michigan statutory limits on such future interests.
- Stopping train operations did not transfer title back to Epworth, and the evidence did not show abandonment because the railroad maintained the corridor and lacked acts demonstrating intent to relinquish title.

## Legal Principles

- Deed language restricting use (e.g., “for railroad purposes only”) does not necessarily create an easement; courts construe the instrument as a whole to determine whether it conveys fee title subject to a limitation or condition.
- A conditional limitation or condition subsequent tied to a specified use creates, at most, a possibility of reverter or right of entry in the grantor.
- Michigan statutes limiting the duration and preservation of possibilities of reverter and rights of entry can extinguish those future interests if not timely preserved or exercised, preventing later enforcement of old reversionary conditions.
- Abandonment requires both intent to relinquish the property interest and external acts carrying that intent into effect; nonuse alone is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court held that the railroad owned the strips in fee and that Epworth could not reclaim them based on long-ago deed conditions because any reversionary interest had been extinguished by statute; the cessation of train service and Epworth’s unilateral actions did not terminate the railroad’s title absent legally sufficient abandonment.


Ludington & N. Ry. v. Epworth Assembly, 188 Mich. App. 25, 468 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991)