As we reported Monday, two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in September attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Barron v. United States. In it, 54 plaintiffs appeal dismissals by the Court of Federal Claims of their takings claims. The appeal present questions related to railroad easements and the interpretation of condemnation decrees and deeds under Florida law. This is our argument preview.
In their opening brief, Barron and the other plaintiffs argue the Court of Federal Claims “erred by concluding the railroad, and not [Barron], held title to the fee simple estate in the strip of land across which the railroad had been granted a ‘right-of-way’ easement to operate a railway line.” Barron maintains the conclusion that a prior condemnation decree granted the railroad ownership of the land in fee simple “violates a fundamental principle of Florida law that a condemning authority acquires only that interest necessary . . . to accomplish the public purpose for which [it] was granted the power of eminent domain.” Barron argues the lower court also “erred . . . by holding that seven voluntary grants conveyed title to the fee simple estate in land.” Barron urges the Federal Circuit to “certify the [lower court’s] novel interpretation of Florida law to the Supreme Court of Florida.”
In its response brief, the United States contends the arguments regarding the voluntary conveyances “were already settled by [the Federal Circuit] and the Supreme Court of Florida” in an earlier line of cases. Additionally, the United States insists, “the CFC properly interpreted” those conveyances” because “the deeds at issue [] show a clear intent to transfer fee simple title.” In response to Barron’s arguments regarding the condemnation decree, the United States says Barron “fail[s] to demonstrate that a railroad was precluded from acquiring a fee simple interest through condemnation as a matter of law.” Finally, the United States argues, “there is no need to certify these questions and delay these proceedings.”
In its reply brief, Barron insists “there is no authority for the proposition that the [] condemnation decree granted . . . title to the fee simple estate in the strip of land.” According to Barron, moreover, the United States wrongly “advances the notion that because a railroad could acquire [] title to the fee simple estate in land every conveyance of an interest in land to a railroad must be interpreted as conveying fee simple estate to the land.”
This case attracted an amicus brief from the Pacific Legal Foundation, Professor James W. Ely, Jr., and the National Association of Reversionary Property Owners in support of the appellants and reversal. The brief argues the lower court’s “remarkable—and utterly counterintuitive—conclusion . . . undermines the very certainty and predictability that property’s traditional rules are designed to protect.”
Oral argument in this case is scheduled to be heard on Monday, September 14, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 203.