A declaratory judgment action was initiated by River City Resort, Inc. against Norfolk Southern Railway Company and JIT Terminal, Inc. regarding the validity of an easement across property owned by River City. The Chancellor ruled in favor of the Railroad, affirming the easement's validity. River City acquired the property in 1992 with knowledge of the existing easement, originally granted in 1958 for constructing an industrial lead track. The easement included a reversion clause if the track was abandoned. Since its construction in 1959, the track has been continuously used by the Railroad. River City contended that the easement was invalid due to a change in its use; however, the court found that the Railroad's operations aligned with the easement's intended purpose. The court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing the broad interpretation of "operation" as encompassing various uses of the track, including switching and storage of cars. The appellate court maintained a presumption of correctness regarding the trial court's factual determinations, deferring to its judgment on credibility of witness testimony.
Evidence established that the easement for the track was used for the benefit of both the landowner and third parties over many years. The easement language permits the Railroad to 'operate' the track indefinitely, without any stated limitation tied to the service of River City’s property. The court cannot impose restrictions not present in the easement documentation, as supported by the precedent in Turnley v. Garfinkel.
River City argued that the termination of a subsequent trackage agreement also ended the easement. However, the agreement was primarily for reimbursement of track construction costs and did not confer property rights, thus its termination does not affect the recorded easement. The trial court found the Railroad's use consistent over the years, despite increased business activity, and deemed that this did not materially change the burden on the servient estate, aligning with O’Leary v. Hall.
River City’s claim of estoppel based on a promise by the Railroad to release the easement was rejected, as there was no evidence of a definitive promise on which River City reasonably relied to its detriment. The Railroad indicated that any potential release depended on finding a suitable alternative property.
River City also contended that the Railroad’s operations constituted a nuisance, referencing City of Columbia v. Lentz. The court noted that nuisance claims must consider various factors such as locality and the nature of the use. The Railroad’s long-standing operations, including the transport of hazardous materials, were deemed consistent with the area’s character and valid purpose. River City did not meet the burden of proof for its nuisance claim.
The trial court's judgment was affirmed, and the appeal costs were assigned to River City Resort, Inc.
