Property Rights/Rails-to-Trails

Baker Sterchi represents landowners nationwide in claims for just compensation arising from the conversion of railroad corridors into public recreational trails. For nearly 20 years, our attorneys have handled rails-to-trails matters across the country, with experience in more than 50 cases involving land in more than 15 states.

These claims arise when a railroad held only an easement for railroad purposes and the federal government authorizes conversion of the corridor to trail use. In those circumstances, adjacent landowners may have a constitutional right to compensation for the loss in property value caused by the new easement.

Why Landowners May Have a Claim

Under many state property laws, land subject to a railroad easement reverts to adjoining landowners when the railroad abandons the corridor. Federal trail conversion can prevent that reversion and instead impose a new public-use easement. Courts have held that this change may constitute a taking of private property requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

To recover compensation, landowners must file a claim in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

How We Help

Our team evaluates potential claims, researches property interests and files suit against the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. We manage all aspects of the litigation and work with landowners throughout the process to pursue compensation for the impact of trail conversion on their property.

Although hearings may occur in Washington, trials typically take place near the location of the affected land.

Who We Represent

We represent individual landowners, whether they support the trail or not. Local governments and other entities that own adjoining property may also be eligible to assert claims. These cases do not seek to stop trail development. They seek only the compensation required by the Constitution when private property is affected for public use.

Fees and Costs

We handle rails-to-trails claims on a contingent fee basis. Clients pay no out-of-pocket fees or litigation costs. If there is a recovery, fees are paid from the recovery pursuant to the engagement agreement, and the United States may reimburse a portion of attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Our Experience

Our rails-to-trails team has nearly two decades of experience asserting property rights of landowners in litigation involving land adjacent to railroad corridors nationwide. We have obtained compensation for clients in jurisdictions across the country and draw on additional firm experience in easement disputes and land-related litigation when needed.

Representative Rails-to-Trails Cases

• Anderson v. United States (Texas)
• Andrews v. United States (North Carolina)
• Bartusek v. United States (Iowa)
• Beaver v. United States (Indiana)
• Brown v. United States (North Carolina)
• Burnett v. United States (Missouri)
• Chickering v. United States (Iowa)
• Gramling v. United States (North and South Carolina)
• Harley-White v. United States (Maine)
• Herron Development v. United States (Montana)
• Lewis v. United States (Maine)
• Martin v. United States (Alabama)
• Mills v. United States (Florida)
• Oak Hill Land Co. v. United States (Mississippi)
• Pennington v. United States (Tennessee)
• Thomas v. United States (North Carolina)
• Tierney v. United States (Iowa)
• Tomberlin v. United States (Alabama)
• Wagner v. United States (Michigan)
• Zinser v. United States (Indiana) 

Resources

• Downloadable Flyer

• E-Sign Contingency Fee Agreement (Polk County, Iowa) 

NOTE: When completing the Contingency Fee Agreement online, the name on the first line will automatically populate after you electronically sign the document.