Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Urbanization & Agriculture

Owner of Landlocked Ranch Seeks Access to
Railway Easement for Ingress and Egress

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In BNSF Railway Co. v. Coconino Land and Cattle, LLC, No. 07-8068-PCT-PGR, 2009 WL 806632 (D. Ariz. Mar. 26, 2009), the United States District Court for the District of Arizona held that a property owner had failed to establish the requisite elements for an implied easement and granted his opponent summary judgment on that claim, but found that his other claims of easement by prescription under state and federal law, easement by necessity, and condemnation required resolution of factual disputes. Therefore, the court denied summary judgment on those issues.

Background

BNSF Railway Co. sought a declaratory judgment quieting its title to a portion of its transcontinental main line right-of-way located on federal land, and also moved for summary judgment on all claims brought against it by Coconino Land and Cattle, LLC. Id. at *1. In 1965, Coconino's predecessor in interest granted the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (AT & SF) a right-of-way across the property and released all tort claims and claims for severance damages against the company. Id. The property was subsequently conveyed twice, and both deeds contained identical language disclaiming any recorded right of access and making the conveyances subject to "[a]ny loss, claim or damage by virtue of the failure of the public records to disclose that said land has any appurtenant means of ingress and egress or any frontage to and from a public highway or dedicated street." Id. The current owner of the ranch (the owner of Coconino) claimed a permanent right to use the right of way for ingress and egress to the otherwise landlocked property, claiming that "agents and employees" of AT & SF made "representations by words and conduct" to the previous owners, his parents, promising permanent access to the property. Id. He alleged that his parents "relied on the oral promises made by the railroad in making their decision to purchase the property, as they would not have purchased property that they knew was landlocked," and claimed that the lack of access made the property virtually unmarketable. Id. at *2.

Arguments

BNSF argued that the right-of-way was inalienable as a matter of federal law, and that it was prohibited for state law or any other use of the right-of-way to "impair the efficacy" of a railroad grant. Id. at *3. It also argued that Coconino's claims were barred by the statute of frauds and Arizona's statute of limitations. Id. at *9. Coconino argued that the ban on conveyances applied strictly to conveying title to the right-of-way, whereas the right of others to use the rights-of-way were permitted as long as the use did not "impair the efficacy" of the grant. Id. at *3. Coconino claimed to either have obtained a prescriptive easement under state or federal law, or an equitable "implied" easement, or claimed that it was entitled to condemn a right-of-way of necessity over the railway's right-of-way. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court held that to acquire an easement by prescription under federal law, Coconino had to show that the easement would benefit the public rather than merely benefiting itself, which was an issue of fact that could not be disposed of on summary judgment. Id. at *5. The court then explained that to establish a prescriptive easement under Arizona law,

a party must demonstrate that the land which is allegedly subject to the easement has been actually and visibly used for a specific purpose for at least ten years and that the use was commenced and continued under a claim of right inconsistent with and hostile to the claim of another.
Id. at *6.

The court denied BNSF's motion for summary judgment as to easement by prescription under state law as well, because the testimony regarding the railway's promises to the former owners and the fact that Coconino used the land for more than twenty years weighed in favor of Coconino, and the court also acknowledged a "strong inference that no reasonable person would knowingly purchase a landlocked parcel of land." Id.

Regarding Coconino's implied easement claim, the court explained that an implied easement is based on the theory that "whenever one conveys property he includes or intends to include in the conveyance whatever is necessary for its beneficial use and enjoyment." Id. at *7. The court found that Coconino had failed to establish the requisite elements for an implied easement, and thus granted BNSF summary judgment on that claim. Id. The court denied BNSF's motion for summary judgment on Coconino's easement by necessity and condemnation claims because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding public use versus public benefit, economic development, and the necessity of the right-of-way. Id. at *8. The court went on to explain that the statute of frauds did not apply to this situation because Coconino sought only right of access, not a property interest in the right-of-way. Id. at *9. Its claims were not barred by the statute of limitations for several reasons, mainly because the current owner had only recently become aware of the terms of the deed. Id.

The case was decided on March 26, 2009.