Posted by Underdog on February 11, 2006 at 08:25:59 (PST):
ARMSTRONG COUNYY PROPERTY OWNERS WIN OVER TRAIL ADVOCATES. JUDGE RULES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
The case of Moody et al. v. Allegheny Valley Land Trust, after over ten years and many appeals, Judge Carson V. Brown granted the property owners Motions for Summary Judgment.
The Court ruled that the property owners owned their property in fee simple and the railroad only obtained an easement to operate a rail road. which was abandoned by Conrail. Conrail abandoned the right of way in Armstrong County from Schenley at mile post 30, to Red Bank at mile post 63.4.
The case was filed by Attorney William Claney Smith. Attorney Donald Bartlett Smith argued the Motions for Summary Judgment.
Attached is the Court's Order and Opinion.
For more information: W, C. Smith. 412 366 0050.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ARMSTRONG QOUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION SALLY L MOODY, ROBERT J, MOODY, )
FRED J. BR1ENT JR.CYNTHIA L BRIEN )
WILLIAM DUFF McCRADY, WILLIAM A. ) EQUITY
LUCAS, A.J. LUCAS, GLENN G. BEATTY )
SHARON L. BEATTY. RODNEY J, ) No. 1995-0963
DENARDO, MELISSA DENARDO, DENNIS )
H, ISEMAN, WILLIAM R. ISEMAN and )
Estate of MARY E. KELLER, DAVID J. ) KUSHON, AND JANIE B. KUSHON, ) Plaintiffs
Vs.
ALLEGHENY VALLEY LAND TRUST, ) ARMSTRONG COUNTY CONSERVANCY )
CHARITABLE TRUST. ARMSTRONG RAILS )
TO TRAILS ASSOCIATION, )
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION. )
JERRY F. LONGWELL, LEE J. CALARIE, )
DAVID R. RUPERT. NORMAN KARP, and )
WILHELMINADECOCK, )
Defendants )
ORDER
Re: Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment
AND NOW. December 30, 2005. following the filing of briefs and oral argument on the above-referenced Motions held on July 27 2005 IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that said Motions be granted as follows:
(1) That Plaintiffs are the fee simple owners of real estate subject to a railroad right of way originally granted to the Allegheny Valley Railroad which is the subject of this litigation.
(2) That the railroad right of way in question was given as an easement only and not as a fee simple conveyance of the underlying right of way
(3) The Consolidated Rail Corporation abandoned said railroad right of way easement between Milepost 30 at Schenley and Milepost 63.4 in Armstrong County on or before June 16, 1989 without timely action being taken by any party or entity to petition the Interstate Commerce Commission for rail banking under the National Trails Systems Act. The railroad right of way is thus deemed to be extinguished by the Consolidated Rail Corporation's abandonment.
(4) The remaining issues relating to injunctive relief, damages for tres-
pass, and libel and slander and disparagement of title and punitive damages shall be reserved for a non-jury trial as provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure.
This Order is being issued for the following reasons:
(a) The Court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue of material fact relating to Plaintiffs' ownership of the real estate either traversed by or adjoined by the railroad right of way in question. Similarly the Court is satisfied that the interest held by Allegheny Valley Railroad was merely a right of way or easement interest.
(b) The issue of whether Consolidated Rail Corporation abandoned the railroad right of way has been the subject of acrimonious dispute between the parties over the life of this litigation both from a factual standpoint and a legal standpoint. After much review of the facts which are reasonably not in dispute, the Court concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact on this issue. Consolidated Rail Corporation intended to abandon the right of way on the basis it was no longer needed for rail service; service was in fact terminated; the property interest was marketed for sale after the abandonment; the track and other items were sold for salvage, and a rail banking agreement was refused by Consolidated Rail Corporation. The legal authorities cited by Plaintiff are more persuasive than those put forth by Defendants, and accordingly the Court deems a summary judgment to be in order.
(c) Plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial has been considered in the context of Pa. R.C.P. No. 1038.3. The Court considers the case to fall within the guidelines of Plaintiffs' seeking equitable relief and the use of a jury being discretionary with the Court with the jury's verdict being advisory only The remaining issues can be handled by the Court without the assistance of a jury.
BY THE COURT
___________________________
Carson V. Brown S.J.
Specially presiding I
25th Judicial District of Pennsylvania
Assignment No. 95 R 1176
Also, as seen in the LEADER TIMES:
Portions of rails-to-trails remain open to users
By Michael Miller
LEADER TIMES
Thursday, February 9, 2006
Allegheny Valley Land Trust's completed trails remain open, even as it is still weighing its options for appeal of a recent ruling in favor of landowners, according to its executive director.
Ron Steffey, executive director at the trust, said there has been some confusion among trail users about whether the trail was still open after visiting Judge Carson Brown recently ruled that former rail beds should revert back to the original property owners, rather than the Trust, which was setting up a trail along the former rail lines.
"The court's decision does not affect the sections of the Armstrong Trail which have been improved by AVLT," the trust said in a statement. "The improved sections continue to be open to the public."
Brown ruled on Dec. 30 that a group of landowners did in fact own the former railroad beds, and that the trust, which had converted many of the 33 miles of abandoned railroad lines into trails, did not have the right to cross their property without permission.
Steffey said he had been receiving calls asking if the trail was still open. The AVLT's Web site, www.armstrongtrail.org, has maps of the sections of trail that are open to the public.
Open portions of the trail, which are either paved or have crushed stone surfaces, include sections in Kittanning, Manor Township, Ford City, Crooked Creek, Rayburn Township and north of Templeton. The trust legally owns those sections through purchases or arrangements with landowners there for use, according to Steffey.
The status of the court case is still not resolved, he said. No damages were awarded in the ruling, and Steffey said that portion of the case has not yet been addressed.
Brown's ruling may be appealed, Steffey added.
The trust said it was "disappointed" in Brown's ruling.
Steffey said the trust is concerned with the safety of trail users, and stressed that people should obey "No Trespassing" signs along the trail and should use only the finished portions of the trail.
There have been no reports of confrontations between landowners and trail users since the ruling, Steffey said.
"That's what we're trying to prevent," he said.
He said the AVLT's Web site is the best place to get up-to-date information on the trail.
"We're in the process of updating our Web site," Steffey said.