Easement question

[Terrel L. Shields]

the Zoning Change process is patently(in my Hood) unfair to the Existing Land owners.

If you have enough political power you can get zoning for churches only to include bordellos. To me one of the more troubling laws on the books is that of a 70s era "Tracks to Trails" legislation allowing public use of old railroad ROWs. The specifications were a little vague to say the least. Sure, deeded land that is clearly fee simple in the name of some defunct rail line, no problem. But many of these deeds had reversionary clauses or were simple easements. The land was supposed to revert to the landowners if the line was abandoned. Peoples farms were bisected by such. In fact, our family farm was cut in 3 different 40 acre fields by a short lived RR from the turn of the 20th century. Few realize that many of these lines were mandated to switch from narrow gauge to standard gauge lines, but in WWI, Wilson order the lines closed and it bankrupted hundreds of small lines, many only 40 or 50 miles long. Lines to mines, timber and elsewhere. The locomotives and rails were scrapped for the war effort. And few of them recorded a release of the easement. My own title will mention that there is no release of the easement from the Arkansas, Oklahoma, & Western (AOW or All Off and Walk as it was known not so fondly) when it folded in 1918.
As a result many farmers, not to mention no small number of suburbanites who were not even aware there even had been a railroad nearby, had people claim these old lines and once again bisect their property from long gone rail systems for people to walk through or bike through. Finally, after 30+ years of litigation, the U. S. Supreme court ruled in 2014 that the owners of such easements (many created under the 1874 laws granting the reversionary provisions) were entitled to just compensation. The tort lawyers have had a field day and a settlement recently resulted in a $5 million dollar payout by taxpayers forced to unravel this mess created by well meaning but stupid government solons.

 

[Mark K]

This is a question that isn't on a residential property but could potentially apply to any property type, so posting in the general appraisal section. If a property has an easement that was acquired by an entity that has power of eminent domain, can said party transfer the easement rights to an entity that does not have power of eminent domain without the consent of the original property owner?

Thanks

Generally, contracts are assignable unless the terms of the contract specify otherwise.

Once the property rights (easement) are conveyed, they probably can be transferred again unless the grantor insists on including language in the document to prevent assignment without permission.

Its not unusual that a municipality will acquire property (under threat of condemnation) and subsequently
that property is transferred to a developer thru some redevelopment commission or similar quasi-governmental entity. Not a stretch to think that they would do the same with an easement.