State v. Preseault

Citations: 652 A.2d 1001; 163 Vt. 38; 1994 Vt. LEXIS 163Docket: 93-607

Court: Supreme Court of Vermont; November 10, 1994; Vermont; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendants J. Paul Preseault, Patricia Preseault, and 985 Associates, Ltd. appeal a Chittenden Superior Court decision that granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, the State of Vermont and the City of Burlington, and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants preventing them from interfering with a railroad right-of-way. The case centers on the defendants' claim to a reversionary interest in this right-of-way, which the State acquired in 1962 and later leased. After the railroad company ceased operations in 1975 and removed equipment, the defendants claimed the easement was abandoned and sought to reclaim the land through a quiet title action in 1981, which was dismissed as within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Subsequent attempts by the defendants to challenge the ICC's approval of the right-of-way’s use as a bicycle path were unsuccessful, with both the Second Circuit Court and the Supreme Court upholding the ICC's authority under the National Trails System Act. The Supreme Court also ruled that the defendants had not sought compensation for the alleged taking under the Tucker Act, thus precluding their takings claim. In 1987, the plaintiffs initiated state court trespass proceedings against the defendants for unauthorized excavation on the right-of-way, leading to the issuance of a permanent injunction in November 1993 after the plaintiffs waived monetary damages. The court's decision was affirmed on appeal.

The court determined that the defendants' reversionary interest in the right-of-way will not materialize until the ICC issues an unconditional certificate of abandonment, while the plaintiffs currently hold an exclusive possessory interest. On appeal, the defendants contended that the court incorrectly assessed the nature of the State's interest in the right-of-way and erroneously claimed that the plaintiffs' rights were exclusive. They further argued that the superior court's ruling was merely advisory due to mootness over a trespass issue and that the issuance of a permanent injunction was improper as the court did not find ongoing trespass. Additionally, the defendants asserted that the court overstepped its authority by permanently enjoining them from entering the right-of-way for any purpose.

The court rejected the defendants' claims, stating that it is established under Vermont law that a railroad easement grants the holder exclusive occupancy rights, similar to a fee simple. Thus, the nature of the State's interest does not affect its rights. The defendants' argument that the plaintiffs, operating a bicycle and pedestrian path rather than a railroad, do not have the same rights was dismissed because it overlooked the National Trails System Act's intent to preserve railroad rights-of-way for future reactivation. The court maintained that the defendants' excavation activities violated the original railroad easement, affirming the exclusivity of the plaintiffs' rights.

Regarding the mootness of the trespass issue, the court clarified that a case is moot only when there is no live controversy or legally cognizable interest in the outcome. The defendants' claim that their solitary excavation event negated ongoing legal relevance was not persuasive, as the potential for future disputes remained.

The parties involved in the litigation must maintain an ongoing interest throughout the case, not just at the complaint's filing. The controversy remains active, with defendants asserting their rights to the right-of-way and planning future excavation activities without hindrance to a bicycle and pedestrian path. The court's final order is not merely advisory, as defendants retain a legitimate stake in the matter. They contend that the court wrongly issued a permanent injunction without proving interference with plaintiffs' property use and that a single encroachment does not constitute a continuing trespass. However, defendants admitted to prior excavation, supporting the court’s findings. Vermont law provides for injunctive relief even against the threat of continuous trespass, validating the injunction due to defendants' refusal to abandon their claims to the property. The injunction is appropriate as it addresses ongoing threats of encroachment. Although defendants argue the injunction improperly restricts their use of the right-of-way, the court interprets the order as prohibiting interference with the current use of the property, not barring general public access. The court's decision is affirmed.