The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled against a group of property owners in a case concerning a former rail corridor in North Carolina. The court decided that the property owners, led by Michael Gambill, do not have a valid claim for compensation after the government issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) for the corridor. This ruling affects the Gambill plaintiffs and others who believed they had rights to the land adjacent to the former railroad.

The case, Gambill v. United States (Docket No. 25-238), centers on whether the property owners retained any rights to the rail corridor after it was transferred to the Hendersonville and Brevard Railway (HBR) in the 1890s. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the legal standing of property owners in similar situations across the country, particularly regarding the interpretation of property rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Background

The plaintiffs in this case are ten individuals or trusts who own land in Henderson County, North Carolina. They claim that their properties are adjacent to a rail corridor that was originally owned by HBR. The plaintiffs assert that the NITU issued by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) on June 29, 2021, effectively took their property rights without compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment.

The dispute arose from the source deeds that HBR obtained in the late 1800s. The plaintiffs argued that these deeds conveyed only easement rights, meaning that when the railroad abandoned the corridor, the property rights should revert to them. However, the government contended that the deeds granted HBR fee-simple title to the land, leaving the plaintiffs with no reversionary interest.

The case reached the U.S. Court of Federal Claims after the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in June 2025, alleging a taking of their property rights. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, seeking a ruling on the ownership of the rail corridor and the implications of the NITU.

The Ruling

Chief Judge Matthew H. Solomson issued the ruling on October 30, 2026. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted the government's motion for summary judgment. The court found that the source deeds conveyed the rail corridor to HBR in fee simple under North Carolina law. The ruling stated, "Plaintiffs cannot show a genuine dispute of fact that any interest in the rail corridor descended to Plaintiffs through their claimed chains of title."

The court emphasized that the plaintiffs could not change their factual premise based on their legal arguments. It stated, "A litigant may not build a summary-judgment motion on one factual premise, accuse its opponent of admitting that premise, and then try to defeat the opponent’s motion by denying the same premise." This ruling effectively closed the door on the plaintiffs' claims for compensation.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for property owners who may believe they have rights to land adjacent to rail corridors. It clarifies that if a railroad acquired land in fee simple, adjacent landowners do not retain any reversionary interest upon abandonment of the railroad. The decision reinforces the principle that property rights are determined by the original conveyances and the nature of the estate conveyed.

Furthermore, this ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving rails-to-trails conversions, where property owners claim that their rights have been taken without compensation. The court's interpretation of North Carolina property law may influence similar cases in other jurisdictions, as it highlights the importance of the original deeds and the intentions of the parties involved in those transactions.

What’s Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeal from the plaintiffs. However, given the court's clear ruling on the matter, an appeal would likely focus on the interpretation of property rights and the legal standards applied in this case. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.