Generally, title that is described as bordering a railroad will revert to the center line of the railroad if the railroad is in a railroad right of way and the tracks have been removed. In Dellach v. DeNinno 862 A.2d 177 (Pa. Super. 2004) the Superior Court held that Pennsylvania law is “well established” that “a grant of land bounded or abutting on a public highway is presumed to carry the fee to the center line of such highway or easement” and that a railroad is a “highway” within the meaning of this rule.
Common Law provided that a property interest reverted to the grantor or the grantor's successors upon abandonment of a railroad right-of-way. See Brookbank v. Benedum-Trees Oil Co., 389 Pa. 151, 131 A.2d 103, 112 (1957); Quarry Office v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 394 Pa.Super. 426, 576 A.2d 358, 363 (1990)
There is a problem in determining when a railroad is “abandoned.” The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Buffalo Township v. Jones 571 Pa. 637, 813 A.2d 659 (2003) addressed this issue. The case appeared to be fact sensitive. The facts as stated by the Court were as follows. In the late 1860's, the Western Pennsylvania Railroad Company constructed a branch line known as the Butler Branch after first obtained rights-of-way and easements over privately owned property through condemnation proceedings and right-of-way agreements. In 1985, Conrail, the successor to the railroad company, notified the Interstate Commerce Commission of its intent to file an application to abandon the Butler Branch due to insufficient revenue. In June of 1987, Conrail filed a request for approval of abandonment of the Butler Branch with the ICC. That September, the ICC issued a certificate and decision authorizing Conrail to abandon the Butler Branch. In the early spring of 1990, a salvage company, purchased the rails and ties along the right-of-way from Conrail and removed these rails and ties. Conrail and Buffalo Township also filed a request for interim trail use pursuant to the Rails to Trails Act with the ICC. However, they withdrew this petition on September 12, 1990, after the ICC informed Conrail and Buffalo Township that it needed further information on whether Conrail had consummated abandonment of the subject property. On June 11, 1991, Conrail released (although the Supreme Court erroneously used the word “conveyed”) by quitclaim deed all of its rights, title and interest in the property to the salvage company, who in turn, “conveyed” its interest to Buffalo Township by quitclaim deed. Conrail did reserve the right to reenter the land in both of the deeds. In 1992, Buffalo Township began to develop the former railroad property as a recreational trail pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rails to Trails Act, 32 P.S. § 5611 and the National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1241. Property owners along the right-of-way erected barriers to prevent passage on the newly developed trails asserting that Conrail had abandoned the right-of-way and thus, the right-of-way reverted to them.
The Court then evaluated these facts to determine whether or not the railroad had abandoned the property.
“In this case, Conrail took certain action that suggested an intention to abandon the railroad line, such as filing a request to abandon rail service with the ICC and entering into an agreement with B. Sykes for salvage of the rails. However, Conrail took other steps evidencing the contrary intent, such as participating in ongoing negotiations with Buffalo Township for the use of the land and expressly retaining the right to reenter the land for future railroad use in the deed. Ultimately, the trial court was persuaded by these latter factors and concluded that Conrail did not abandon the right-of-way. In fact, these latter factors demonstrated Conrail's intent to retain an interest in the right-of-way. Accordingly, on due consideration of all of the evidence, we find that the equity court reasonably concluded that Conrail did not abandon the Butler Branch.”
The Buffalo Township case makes it clear that the Courts will look for any indicia to support a finding that a railroad has not been abandoned. To support this position the Courts will rely on the fact that both the federal and state “Rails to Trails” Acts indicate a clear intent on the part of Congress and the Pennsylvania Legislature to encourage the preservation of railroad rights-of-way by using existing rights-of-way for interim recreational trail use.
