Hardy v. United States


Issue(s) Presented

1. “Whether the CFC erred in ruling that a number of deeds for the rail corridor at issue in this case conveyed merely an easement to the railroad where no language in the deeds overcomes the presumption that deeds convey a fee interest under Georgia law. Similarly, whether the CFC erred in ruling that deeds conveying land to the state for a public road conveyed merely an easement, rather than a fee.” 2. “Whether the CFC erred in ruling that issuance of a notice providing time to negotiate possible conversion of a right-of-way for interim use as a trail effectuated a physical taking of certain Plaintiffs’ property where the notice did not actually apply to the section of rail line adjacent to those Plaintiffs’ land, where the railroad lacked any intent to abandon this section of rail line, and where trail conversion never occurred.”


1. “Because the MG&AR form deeds, the Lee deed, and the County Road 213 deeds convey only easements, we affirm the trial court’s holding that Hardy has a compensable property interest.” 2. “Because neither the trial court’s opinion nor the parties’ briefing before this court sufficiently focused on the relevant inquiry as recently promulgated by this court in Caquelin v. United States, 959 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020), we vacate and remand for the parties to address this issue before the trial court in the first instance.”