Kapp v. Norfolk Southern Ry Co.

350 F.Supp.2d 597

Christopher KAPP, et al., Plaintiffs v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant

No. CIV.A.1:03-CV-1061.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

December 10, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Larry L. Miller, Duncannon, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Benjamin C. Dunlap, Jr., Craig J. Staudenmaier, Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

CONNER, District Judge.

This property rights case has been 150 years in the making. Plaintiffs claim an easement over railroad tracks presently operated by defendant, Norfolk Southern Railway Company ("Norfolk"). The land underlying the tracks was once owned by plaintiffs' predecessors in interest, and a crossing has been maintained for their benefit since before 1850. Nevertheless, Norfolk denies the existence of an easement and recently announced plans to close the crossing. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of their rights and an injunction against the closure.

Presently before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment (Docs.62, 64). Substantial evidence, much of it dating to the mid-Nineteenth Century, has been submitted by both parties in support of their respective positions. Counsel further defined the issues in controversy during a hearing on August 25, 2004. The motions are ripe for disposition.

I. Statement of Facts

In 1847, two individuals owned adjoining tracts of land along the southern side of the Susquehanna River, in central Pennsylvania. A ninety-two acre tract held by John Greek lay to the east of a seventy-eight acre tract held by George Moore. (Doc. 66 ¶¶ 26-28, 36-37; Doc. 67, Ex. D ¶¶ 21, 64, 126-131; Doc. 75, Attach. 2 ¶¶ 26-28, 36-37). Through the middle of their lands extended railroad tracks, running parallel to the river. The tracks were operated by the Pennsylvania Rail Road Company but the underlying land was owned by Greek and Moore respectively.¹ (Doc. 66 ¶¶ 26-32, 36; Doc. 75, Attach. 2 ¶¶ 26-32, 36; see also Doc. 67, Ex. D ¶¶ 21, 64, 114, 117, 126-131).

A public road, known as River Road, also extended through both tracts.² From the east, it crossed over the railroad tracks at a point called "Perdix Crossing." (Doc. 63, Ex. A; Doc. 66 ¶ 11; Doc. 67, Ex. D ¶ 122; Doc. 75, Attach. 2 ¶ 11). It bisected Greek's tract and continued into Moore's tract, running parallel to the river and along the northern edge of the railroad tracks. After entering Moore's property, the road turned slightly south, and proceeded back over the tracks via another crossing, now known as "Sibles Crossing." The road then continued west. (Doc. 67, Exs. A-C; Doc. 75, Exs. A, C).

During 1847 and 1848, Greek and Moore respectively conveyed the land underlying the railroad tracks to the Pennsylvania Rail Road Company. These conveyances split the tracts into northern and southern portions. Neither the Moore nor the Greek deed includes a reservation of an easement or right of way across the tracks or refers to the public road and existing crossings. (Doc. 66 ¶¶ 26-28, 36-38; Doc. 75, Attach. 2 ¶¶ 26-28, 36-38; see Doc. 67, Exs. A-C, Ex. D ¶¶ 21, 64, 72, 117, 126-131; Doc. 75, Exs. A, C).

Forty years later, River Road ceased to be a public thoroughfare. Other highways were being installed in the area, limiting the road's usefulness as a transit line, and the township entered a vacation order in 1887. The road then reverted to private ownership and was thereafter referred to as "Railroad Street."³ (Doc. 67, Ex. D ¶¶ 122-25).

A new crossing, approximately one-half mile east of Sibles Crossing, was later installed by the Pennsylvania Rail Road Company over the railroad tracks encompassed by the original Greek tract. It connected Railroad Street to a recently completed public route, "Burley Road," which provided access to a public highway south of the tracks. (Doc. 67, Ex. B ¶¶ 7-8, Ex. C ¶¶ 4-6; Ex. D ¶¶ 124-25). The new crossing is now known as "Cove Crossing." A portion of Railroad Street to the east of Cove Crossing was closed to vehicular traffic and converted to private use. Perdix Crossing, which no longer connected to Railroad Street or otherwise served as an access point for residents, was subsequently removed. (Doc. 62 ¶ 11; Doc. 62, Ex. C; Doc. 67, Ex. C ¶¶ 4-6; Doc. 74, Attach. 1 ¶ 11; Doc. 99 ¶¶ 9-12; Doc. 99, Attachs. 1, 3; Doc. 100 ¶¶ 9-12; Doc. 103 ¶¶ 2-6).

As these events unfolded, the lands bordering the railroad tracks and the Susquehanna River changed hands several times. Several parcels that were originally part of the Moore tract were sold to plaintiffs Kathleen and Larry Miller ("Millers") and are currently identified as 204, 206, 208, and 216 Railroad Street. Other parcels, previously within the Greek tract, were also sold to the Millers and are now known as 120 and 122 Railroad Street. (Doc. 66 ¶¶ 26-28, 36-37; Doc. 75, Attach. 2 ¶¶ 26-28, 36-37; see also Doc. 67, Ex. D ¶¶ 21, 64, 126-131).

Another plaintiff, Grover Kisner ("Kisner"), purchased a separate parcel of the original Greek tract, now designated as 100 Railroad Street. Appearing in the chain of title to this property is the Pennsylvania Rail Road Company, which purchased a portion of the land in 1896 and sold it to one of Kisner's predecessors in interest in 1960. That deed provides that "access to and from the parcel ... will be by means of said Public Road only and that a right [of] ... passage-way ... over the private grade crossing, approximately 150 feet South of said land, is not hereby granted." (Doc. 62, Ex. B; Doc. 67, Ex. D ¶ 101; see also Doc. 67, Ex. D ¶¶ 96-112). The phrase "said Public Road" is not defined, but the "private grade crossing" to which the deed refers is Cove Crossing.⁴ Without access to Cove Crossing, the only means to cross the railroad tracks — and to reach a public highway — is Sibles Crossing. (Doc. 62, Ex. B; see also Doc. 62 ¶¶ 1, 4; Doc. 62, Exs. A, C; Doc. 67, Ex. D ¶ 101; Doc. 74, Attach. 1 ¶¶ 1, 4).

In 2002, Norfolk, as successor in interest to the Pennsylvania Rail Road Company, decided to close Sibles Crossing. It offered safety concerns as the primary justification. (Doc. 66 ¶¶ 6, 12; Doc. 75, Attach. 1 ¶¶ 6, 12; see also Doc. 67, Ex. A). The grade of the tracks at Sibles Crossing is purportedly too high, and many vehicles scrape the road surface. (Doc. 67, Ex. A). Railroad Street includes significant curves immediately south of the crossing, limiting drivers' line of sight. And vehicles exiting Railroad Street by way of Sibles Crossing must travel over a private drive in order to merge onto the public highway. In contrast, Cove Crossing and Burley Road ostensibly provide a relatively straight and safe means of access to the highway. (Doc. 67, Ex. A).

The plaintiff-residents of Railroad Street disagree with Norfolk's assessment. They assert that Sibles Crossing provides the sole viable means of ingress and egress for those who reside to the west of a wooden bridge on Railroad Street. (Docs.52-53). The bridge is in need of repair and cannot support larger vehicles, including firetrucks and ambulances. The residents contend that, if Sibles Crossing is closed, they will not have a safe connection to the public highway. (Docs. 52, 53; Doc. 62 ¶¶ 58, 61-62; Doc. 74, Attach. 1 ¶¶ 58, 61-62).

Several residents of Railroad Street commenced the instant civil action in a state trial court in 2003, and the case was soon removed to this court on grounds of diversity of citizenship.⁵ (Doc. 1). They seek declaratory and injunctive relief, recognizing their property rights in Sibles Crossing and enjoining its closure without their approval. (Docs.52, 53). Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docs.62, 64).

II. Standard of Review

"Concurrent resolution of cross-motions for summary judgment can present a formidable task." Interbusiness Bank, N.A. v. First Nat'l Bank of Mifflintown, 318 F.Supp.2d 230, 235 (M.D.Pa.2004); see also 10A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2720 (3d ed.1998). The court is bound to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party with respect to each motion. FED. R. CIV. P. 56; United States v. Hall, 730 F.Supp. 646, 648 (M.D.Pa.1990). Adherence to this directive may require "two statements of the `facts' of the same case" and may "counsel separate opinions on the respective motions." Interbusiness Bank, 318 F.Supp.2d at 236.

The cross-motions sub judice may be successfully resolved in a single decision. Counsel conceded at the hearing on the cross-motions that the nature of the evidence, as opposed to the legal ramifications thereof, is largely uncontroverted (Doc. 102 at 59). See 10A WRIGHT ET AL., supra, § 2725 ("[That] the parties differ on the legal conclusions to be drawn from the facts is not ... a ground for denying summary judgment....") (footnotes omitted). Factual disputes that existed during the earlier stages of the case have been resolved through discovery. The discussion in this memorandum reflects those facts as to which there is no reasonable controversy and no "genuine issue." See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c), (d); see also Schnall v. Amboy Nat'l Bank, 279 F.3d 205, 209 (3d Cir.2002).

III. Discussion⁶

An easement is a unique form of real property. It grants not a right of possession but a right of use. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROPERTY: SERVITUDES § 1.2 cmts. a, d (2000); GRANT S. NELSON ET AL., CONTEMPORARY PROPERTY 688-89 (1996); see also Clements v. Sannuti, 356 Pa. 63, 51 A.2d 697, 698-99 (1947); Leichter v. E. Realty Co., 358 Pa.Super. 189, 516 A.2d 1247, 1251-52 (1986) (Kelly, J., concurring). It affects not one but two parcels of land: The owner of dominant estate enjoys the benefits of the easement while the owner of the servient estate must honor and endure the burdens.⁷ Patricca v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 527 Pa. 267, 590 A.2d 744, 748 (1991); Morning...