Request By:
Hon. Dave Hourigan
State Representative
Route 1, Box 69
Gravel Switch, KY 40328
Opinion
Opinion By: Frederic J. Cowan, Attorney General; Ann M. Sheadel, Director Civil and Environmental Law Division
This is in response to your recent letter, and to letters from several individual landowners, asking for an opinion concerning CSX Transportation's abandonment of a railroad line between Lebanon and Corbin, Kentucky, and the current ownership of the property on which the railroad line had been operated.
From the information that has been supplied to us, we understand the facts to be as follows. In the mid-1800's, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company obtained property interests in land, either by voluntary conveyances from private property owners or by condemnation proceedings pursuant to the power of eminent domain, for the operation of its railroad between Lebanon and Corbin, Kentucky. At some point after that time, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company's property interests in this land apparently were conveyed to CSX Transportation. In February of 1989, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) approved CSX Transportation's request to abandon 55 miles of this railroad line; CSX Transportation subsequently removed the track from that portion of the railroad line.
CSX Transportation now is attempting to sell the land on which this railroad line had been operated. The company has offered adjoining landowners the first option to purchase the land that is adjacent to their land, and indicates its intent to sell the land to other parties if the adjacent landowners do not purchase the land. In fact, we have been supplied with a Quitclaim Deed by which CSX Transportation conveyed its interest in part of this land to two individuals for $ 16,700.00.
Two questions have been raised concerning this situation:
1. What property interests, if any, do CSX Transportation and the adjacent landowners currently have in the property on which the railroad line had been operated?
2. What property interests, if any, does a Quitclaim Deed from CSX Transportation convey for the property on which the railroad line had been operated?
In order to answer these questions, we must determine, if possible, what property interests originally were conveyed to the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company and, subsequently, to CSX Transportation. Disputes over the nature of the property interests conveyed to a railroad traditionally have centered on whether the interest conveyed is an easement or a fee simple. An easement is a right "to use in some manner the land of another for a specified purpose." Inter-County Rural Electric Corp. v. Reeves, 294 Ky. 458, 171 S.W.2d 978, 983 (1943). The holder of an easement has no ownership interest in the land. Henry Bickel Co. v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp., Ky., 336 S.W.2d 345, 347 (1960). A fee simple, on the other hand, is the maximum of legal ownership of the land, by which the holder is entitled to the entire property without condition or restriction. Black's Law Dictionary 554 (5th ed. 1979).
In the present situation, the conveyances to the railroad occurred either by condemnation proceedings or by voluntary conveyances by the landowners. Any property interests that were conveyed to the railroad pursuant to condemnation proceedings are easements, because in Kentucky, "a deed executed pursuant to condemnation proceedings by a railroad company conveys only an easement in the property . . . ." Rose v. Bryant, Ky., 251 S.W.2d 860, 861 (1952). See also Keown v. Brandon, 206 Ky. 93, 266 S.W. 889 (1924); Dickerson v. Goocey, 154 Ky. 685, 159 S.W. 539 (1913).
A property interest that was conveyed to the railroad pursuant to a voluntary conveyance by the landowner may be either an easement or a fee simple. The property interest is limited to an easement if the deed that conveyed the interest to the railroad "clearly indicates a purpose and intention to convey a continuous and perpetual right, title, and use of the land so long as it was devoted to the purposes for which it was acquired." Mammoth Cave National Park Assn. v. State Highway Commission, 261 Ky. 769, 88 S.W.2d 931, 934 (1935) (emphasis added). Thus, if the deed limits the use of the land to certain purposes, the railroad acquires only an easement for those purposes. Barton v. Jarvis, 218 Ky. 239, 291 S.W. 38 (1927). Accordingly, in a situation in which the landowner granted the railroad a right of way over his property, the landowner granted the railroad only an easement. Laurel County v. Howard, 189 Ky. 221, 224 S.W. 762, 763 (1920). Moreover, such a grant to the railroad remains an easement even if the deed designates the right acquired by the railroad as a fee simple and even if the deed includes a covenant of warranty; the controlling question is whether the land was conveyed to the railroad for a specific purpose, in which case the railroad's interest in the land is limited to an easement for that purpose. Mammoth Cave National Park Assn. v. State Highway Commission, 88 S.W.2d at 934.
According to these standards, it appears that the only way for a deed to convey a fee simple interest in the land to the railroad would be for the deed to be worded as a general, unconditional conveyance without any conditions, qualifications, or restrictions as to the use of the property. It seems unlikely that such deeds would have been issued in this present situation. Indeed, the only deeds that we have seen regarding this situation clearly convey to the railroad only rights of way, which are without question easements.
We acknowledge, however, that it is possible, although unlikely, that some landowners may have conveyed fee simple interests in their property to the railroad. Accordingly, we are unable to say with certainty that the property interests that were conveyed to the railroad voluntarily and not pursuant to condemnation proceedings were either easements or fees simple. In these situations, each concerned landowner should examine the legal instrument or document for each parcel of land in question in light of the standards described above to determine what property interest actually was conveyed by the landowner to the railroad.
In light of the factual uncertainty regarding the nature of the property interests that were conveyed to the railroad, we will answer each of the questions that has been raised in this matter in two ways: first, we will answer the question for those situations in which an easement was conveyed to the railroad, whether by condemnation proceedings or by a voluntary conveyance by the landowner; second, we will answer the question for those situations in which the landowner conveyed a fee simple to the railroad.
1. What property interests, if any, do CSX Transportation and the adjacent landowners currently have in the property on which the railroad line had been operated?
Easement: When an easement is granted to a railroad company by a landowner or by condemnation proceedings, the underlying ownership of the land remains with the landowner. Laurel County v. Howard, 224 S.W. at 763. That means that the landowner still owns the land, even though the railroad has obtained the exclusive right to use the land for its railroad. If the railroad abandons its use of the land, the railroad loses its easement and retains no property interest in the land. Barton v. Jarvis, 291 S.W. at 40. At that time, the land automatically reverts to the landowner who originally conveyed the easement to the railroad or to that landowner's successors in interest. Rose v. Bryant, 251 S.W.2d at 861; Mammoth Cave National Park Assn. v. State Highway Commission, 88 S.W.2d at 933-34.
In the present situation, there seems to be no question about the fact that CSX Transportation has abandoned the railroad line. Indeed, CSX Transportation actually requested and received permission from the ICC to abandon the railroad line and then proceeded to remove the railroad tracks on the line. Moreover, CSX Transportation has attempted to convey the land to other parties for purposes other than operating the railroad. These facts clearly indicate that CSX Transportation has abandoned its use of the land for a railroad line. See Mammoth Cave National Park Assn. v. State Highway Commission, 88 S.W.2d at 935.
Therefore, in those situations in which CSX Transportation was granted only an easement in the land, whether by condemnation proceedings or by voluntary conveyance by the landowner, CSX Transportation currently retains no property interest whatsoever in the land. The full ownership of this land presently resides with the landowner who conveyed the easement in the land to the railroad, or from whom the easement was taken by condemnation proceedings, or to that landowner's successors in interest.
Fee Simple: When a railroad obtains a fee simple interest in land, the railroad becomes the owner of the land. In such a situation, a change in the railroad's use of the land will not alter the railroad's ownership of the land. Therefore, in those situations, if any, in which a landowner conveyed a fee simple interest in the land to the railroad, and in which that interest subsequently was conveyed to CSX Transportation, CSX Transportation currently retains a fee simple interest in the property (unless, of course, CSX Transportation has conveyed the property to someone else). See Laurel County v. Howard, 224 S.W. at 763. In such situations, the adjacent landowners have no property interest whatsoever in the land, unless they purchase the land from CSX Transportation.
2. What property interests, if any, does a Quitclaim Deed from CSX Transportation convey for the property on which the railroad line had been operated?
A Quitclaim Deed is defined as:
A deed of conveyance operating by way of release; that is, intended to pass any title, interest, or claim which the grantor may have in the premises, but not professing that such title is valid, nor containing any warranty or covenants for title.
Black's Law Dictionary 1126 (5th ed. 1979). A Quitclaim Deed can convey no more than the property interest that the grantor (in this case, CSX Transportation) actually has in the land.
Easement: As explained above, in those situations in which the railroad was granted only an easement in the land, CSX Transportation currently has no property interest left in the land. Therefore, a Quitclaim Deed from CSX for its interest in such land actually conveys no property interest whatsoever in the land.
Fee Simple: In those situations in which the railroad was granted a fee simple interest in the land, and in which that interest subsequently was conveyed to CSX Transportation, a Quitclaim Deed from CSX Transportation conveys that fee simple interest in the land.
In sum, any property owner who is concerned about this matter should determine whether the property interest in the land in question was conveyed to the railroad by condemnation proceedings or by voluntary conveyance. If the interest in the land was conveyed by voluntary conveyance, the property owner should examine his legal instrument or document, with help from legal counsel if appropriate, to determine whether an easement or a fee simple interest was conveyed to the railroad. If the interest conveyed to the railroad, whether by condemnation proceedings or by voluntary conveyance, was an easement, then it is our opinion that the property owner currently has full ownership of the land that has been abandoned by CSX Transportation, provided that the property owner is the landowner who originally conveyed the interest to the railroad or is that landowner's successor in interest. If the interest conveyed to the railroad was a fee simple, and if that interest was in fact subsequently conveyed to CSX Transportation, then it is our opinion that CSX Transportation has full ownership of the land and may convey the land to whomever it chooses.