Here’s the Brief for the United States in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (filed Dec. 17, 2013).
That’s the case, set for argument on January 14, 2014, in which the Court is considering the meaning of the term railroad “right of way” as used in an 1875 federal statute.
As…
Here are the final two amicus briefs supporting the petitioner in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (cert. granted Oct. 1, 2013). That’s the case in which the Court is considering the meaning of the term railroad “right of way” as used in an 1875 federal statute. As our…
Here are two more amici briefs supporting the petitioner in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (cert. granted Oct. 1, 2013). That’s the case in which the Court is considering the meaning of the term railroad “right of way” as used in an 1875 federal statute.
…
Here’s the amici brief of Pacific Legal Foundation and the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (cert. granted Oct. 1, 2013). That’s the case in which the Court is considering the meaning of the term railroad “right of way” as used in an 1875 federal statute.
As we’ve explained, although this case is a quiet title action out of a Colorado U.S. District Court, it could have huge implications for rails-to-trails takings cases in the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit. The issue is whether the federal government retained an “implied reversionary interest” when it issued railroad patents, or whether these grants were subject only to a railroad easement. The difference is that easements may be extinguished, while reversionary interests cannot.
The Tenth Circuit, in contrast to other courts, held that the right of way is subject to an implied reversionary interest in favor of the United States, meaning that the property owner doesn’t have “property” that was taken when the railroad was abandoned and was turned into a recreational trail. The merits brief of the petitioners is posted here.
We filed an amicus brief in the case, available here.
The PLF/CCJ brief argues:
This case raises important questions regarding the common law system of property ownership and the certainty of titles in property.
…
In the decision below, however, the Tenth Circuit repudiated the common law rules of property ownership in favor of a per se rule, holding that the United States—the original grantor of the railroad easement and the Brandts’ fee estate—will retain an “implied reversionary interest” in an 1875 Act right-of-way, even after the government patents the underlying land and conveys it to a private party without any express reservation of reversionary rights. … The decision below extended the Tenth Circuit’s rule, holding that all private landowners whose titles are traceable to a federal land patent will be subject to the government’s unexpressed reservation of a reversionary interest in a railroad right-of-way, regardless of the rights and expectations established by their titles.
…
If not reversed, the Tenth Circuit’s rule will unsettle the rights and expectations of tens of thousands of landowners across the nation. … Amici urge this Court to reverse the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in this case and to reaffirm the fundamental common law principle that ownership of land will be determined by title, not implication.
More background on the case in a piece in Jurist by PLF’s Brian T. Hodges, “Brandt v. US: Should the Common Law of Propert be Scrapped?”
Here’s the amici brief we are filing (along with our firm colleagues Mark Murakami and Bethany Ace) in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (cert. granted Oct. 1, 2013). That’s the case in which the Court is considering the meaning of the term railroad “right of way” as…
Here’s the property owner’s merits brief in the case about the meaning of the term “railroad right of way” in an 1875 federal statute, Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12- 1173. The meaning of a term in a somewhat obscure federal statute in a quiet title action isn’t a case…
Hey, that rhymes! Today, in a not-entirely-unexpected move, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert and agreed to review United States v. Brandt Revocable Trust, No. 09-8047 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 11, 2012).
We say not-unexpected for two reasons. First, the Tenth Circuit expressly noted its ruling created a circuit split (that’s catnip to counsel considering…
Here’s the Opinion and Order of the Court of Federal Claims after the damages trial in Childers v. United States, No. 08-1981 (Aug. 5, 2013). It’s a very long opinion (145 pages, with a table of contents!), so we’re not going to summarize it, but if you want to know how a rails-to-trails case…
The federal government has filed its brief responding to the cert petition which asks the Supreme Court to review a Tenth Circuit decision and resolve a lower court split about the meaning of the term railroad “right of way” as used in an 1875 federal statute and federal land patents subject to the 1875 Act.
Every now and then, we post an update from the rails-to-trails arena. But we’ve never provided a “big picture” look at the issue. Well, law.com has saved us the effort. In “Rails-to-Trails Program Costly to Taxpayers,” Jenna Greene provides an overview of how a law the Congressional Budget Office said “wouldn’t cost the…
