 |
Re: SMART gets sued web digger help
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 03-20-2021 - 22:00
> Web digger where are you? About a year and a half ago the issue of railroad easements reverting back to the original deed of trust owners was settled in a state Supreme Court case.They ruled in favor of the landowners. I don't remember the details.
What I heard, about 20 years ago, revolved around R/W reversionary clauses. If the clause read "original owner", and that individual was deceased, there was no person for the title to revert to, so it didn't. If the clause read "original owner, successors, and assigns", then the R/W reverted, and it was to counter this situation that the right of way banking act was passed (a.k.a. "rails to trails"). The right of way was not abandoned rather the owning RR executed a quitclaim deed on favor of the STB, which was empowered to grant custodianship to some organization (government or private) that would maintain the status of the property as a R/W, with or without a trail. Title to the R/W in question remains with the STB, not the custodian.
What I heard, about 20 years ago, revolved around R/W reversionary clauses. If the clause read "original owner", and that individual was deceased, there was no person for the title to revert to, so it didn't. If the clause read "original owner, successors, and assigns", then the R/W reverted, and it was to counter this situation that the right of way banking act was passed (a.k.a. "rails to trails"). The right of way was not abandoned rather the owning RR executed a quitclaim deed on favor of the STB, which was empowered to grant custodianship to some organization (government or private) that would maintain the status of the property as a R/W, with or without a trail. Title to the R/W in question remains with the STB, not the custodian.
