Moody v. Allegheny Valley Land Trust
601 Pa. 655, 976 A.2d 484 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the National Trails System Act, a railroad right-of-way is validly 'railbanked,' preventing its abandonment and reversion to the landowner, as long as the recipient trail organization complies with the Act's requirements. This is true even if the original rail operator does not explicitly agree to be bound to restore future rail service.
Facts:
- A railroad right-of-way, or easement, existed over land owned by Appellants in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania.
- Conrail, the holder of the right-of-way, received permission from the Interstate Commerce Commission to abandon rail service on the line.
- Following this, Conrail agreed to convey the right-of-way to an organization nominated by the Armstrong County Conservancy.
- The Conservancy nominated the Allegheny Valley Land Trust (AVLT), a rails-to-trails organization, to receive the property.
- In early 1992, Conrail conveyed the right-of-way to AVLT via a quitclaim deed.
- Upon recording the deed, AVLT attached a 'Declaration of Railbanking,' stating its intent to preserve the corridor for future rail use while allowing interim trail use, consistent with the National Trails System Act.
- Conrail transferred responsibility for maintenance of the right-of-way to AVLT, the Conservancy, and Armstrong County.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants (landowners) filed a complaint in the Armstrong County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) against Conrail and Appellees (trail organizations).
- The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that Conrail had abandoned the right-of-way, thereby extinguishing the easement.
- The trial court found in favor of the Appellants, concluding that the right-of-way had been abandoned.
- Appellees appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate court).
- The Superior Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the transfer to a rails-to-trails organization did not constitute an abandonment.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted the Appellants' petition for allowance of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a railroad's conveyance of a right-of-way to a qualified rails-to-trails organization, which declares its intent to railbank the property, constitute an abandonment of the easement under Pennsylvania law if the original railroad does not agree to be bound to restore future rail service?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Greenspan
No, the conveyance does not constitute an abandonment because a valid railbanking occurred. The essential test for an effective private railbanking is compliance with Section 1247(d) of the National Trails System Act, not a commitment from the original railroad to restore service. This section requires that the interim trail use be subject to future restoration for rail purposes and that the new organization assumes all management, liability, and tax responsibilities. Here, AVLT, a qualified organization, accepted the right-of-way and filed a Declaration of Railbanking, satisfying these requirements. The court also held that no unconstitutional taking occurred, reasoning that the original deed creating the easement for a 'Road' was broad enough to encompass interim trail use, which is consistent with the overall transportation purpose of the easement.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Saylor
Yes, while precedent compels the conclusion that no abandonment occurred, the conversion to a public trail effectuated a taking of the Appellants' property. The majority's interpretation of the deed's term 'Road' as a general 'through-way' is incorrect; the original grant was clearly for a railroad, and the parties would not have contemplated its use as a public recreational trail. Converting the private railroad right-of-way into a public trail facility imposes a new and different burden on the servient estates, exceeding the scope of the original easement. While the public policy goals of the Trails Act are valid, achieving them by imposing a disproportionate burden on a few individuals without just compensation is contrary to constitutional principles against the uncompensated taking of private property.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the validity of private railbanking in Pennsylvania and lowers the threshold for its execution by removing the need for the original railroad's commitment to future service. It prioritizes the public policy of preserving rail corridors under the National Trails System Act over a strict, common-law interpretation of property abandonment. The ruling makes it significantly easier for rails-to-trails conversions to proceed, but it also signals that future legal challenges from landowners may shift from arguing abandonment to claiming an unconstitutional taking due to the change in the easement's use and character.
Unlock the full brief for Moody v. Allegheny Valley Land Trust