 |
Re: Xonstruction in the canyon
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 07-06-2015 - 14:34
>Dr. Zarkoff explains the current situation below. But even with all that, it's very unlikely that WRM could "own" the land under the tracks,
It doesn't. I was there, privy to the discussions and process.
>because it's very unlikley that UP, WP, or SN ever did.
Out of those discussions came the revelation that some parts of the SN R/W were "fee simple", which means the SN (it's predecessor actually) bought the land outright, other sections were reversionary.
>So if a line is abandoned the land automatically reverts to the original owners,
The courts have defined "original owners" to be specifically the persons who sold the land to the RR with this stipulation included in the sale. They also said that if those persons are no longer living, there are no "original owners" for the land to revert to, therefore no reversion. They also also said that if the stipulations of sale read "original owners, successors, and assigns", then the land reverted to the successors (usually heirs) and assigns (non-heirs, but rather owners who purchased the land from the original owner or his/her heirs).
>The trails thing postpones the reversion, but once the tracks are gone (or even sometimes if they're still there but not used)
It's more a case of "prevents" than "postpones".
>surrounding owners commonly erase parts of the r/w for their own purposes whether they "own" the land or not.
And they can wind up being kicked off the R/W if it's in rails to trails.
>Possession is nine-tenths etc.
Haven't specifically looked, but I think you'll find the "doctrine of conspicuous occupation" (prescriptive easements and squatters rights) have been deliberately prevented by the rails to trails act.
It doesn't. I was there, privy to the discussions and process.
>because it's very unlikley that UP, WP, or SN ever did.
Out of those discussions came the revelation that some parts of the SN R/W were "fee simple", which means the SN (it's predecessor actually) bought the land outright, other sections were reversionary.
>So if a line is abandoned the land automatically reverts to the original owners,
The courts have defined "original owners" to be specifically the persons who sold the land to the RR with this stipulation included in the sale. They also said that if those persons are no longer living, there are no "original owners" for the land to revert to, therefore no reversion. They also also said that if the stipulations of sale read "original owners, successors, and assigns", then the land reverted to the successors (usually heirs) and assigns (non-heirs, but rather owners who purchased the land from the original owner or his/her heirs).
>The trails thing postpones the reversion, but once the tracks are gone (or even sometimes if they're still there but not used)
It's more a case of "prevents" than "postpones".
>surrounding owners commonly erase parts of the r/w for their own purposes whether they "own" the land or not.
And they can wind up being kicked off the R/W if it's in rails to trails.
>Possession is nine-tenths etc.
Haven't specifically looked, but I think you'll find the "doctrine of conspicuous occupation" (prescriptive easements and squatters rights) have been deliberately prevented by the rails to trails act.
