Opinion: Rail Trail Report Causes Concerns About Land Ownership

In a letter to the editor, Dedham resident William Ralph shares his concerns about land ownership he said are present in the Rail Trail title report. Ralph is a resident of Precinct 6 and was a candidate for selectmen.

A recent letter to the editor submitted by Precinct 6 Town Meeting Representative Michael Cocchi claimed the rail trail portion of the debate discussion during the Annual Town Election was inaccurate. My name is William Ralph. I am a resident of Precinct 6, and I was a candidate for Selectman. Since one of my statements was included in the “inaccurate” category, I want to urge people to actually read the report, rather than present opinions as fact. There is nothing inaccurate about my statement that "The title was not clear [on ownership]”. That is not an opinion, its a fact.

Three things included in the report should cause everyone to be concerned. Those three things are quoted from the report as follows:

1. "We have not independently verified the location of each acquired parcel because of the time-consuming scope of such a task.” The full quote is "The railroad valuation plans provide the 'sources of title' for the original property acquisition documents by the railroad. Said sources of title are labeled on the val plans with the caption of 'Schedule of Title.' The approximate location of each parcel is cross-referenced on said Val Plans. We have not independently verified the location of each acquired parcel because of the time-consuming scope of such a task."

2. "We have relied on the accuracy of the val plans with respect to determining the location of the various parcels and providing the correct sources of title information.” The full quote is "We have not sketched out the various parcels conveyed in the many deeds to confirm that said deeds convey parcels that together comprise the entire subject railroad right of way. To do so would be an overwhelming task. We have relied on the accuracy of the val plans with respect to determining the location of the various parcels and providing the correct sources of title information."

3. "This report is not a certification of title.” The full quote is "Bankruptcy indices compiled by the Registry of Deeds were examined to the extent the Registry of Deeds maintains said records. This report is not a certification of title but is a report based upon a search the records of the registry of Deeds. We shall not be liable for mistakes in the indices or in the records of the Registry. Our liability shall be limited to the charge for this Report."

Again, I encourage anyone interested in this subject to read the report. The abandoned railroad right of way is subject to 27 different items, many of which do not present a problem. However, page 2 of the report describes potential issues in 2 places. Page 3 tells us that the search was not comprehensive, that a proper search and verification of each parcel would be too time-consuming. The report relied on Valuation Plans which have been defeated in court (see cases below). A note on page 4 illustrates that the Val Plans cannot be trusted.

Further down on page 4 we are told that they did not confirm that the deeds convey the necessary title!
At the end of the report, there is a disclaimer stating that the report is not a certification of title and that they are not liable for mistakes.

These issues should concern everyone. The following cases have resulted from these same types of issues:

• Macy Elevator v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 708, 730 (2011) (Indiana); 105 Fed. Cl. 195 (2012) (Indiana)
• Ybanez v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 659, 665-68 (2011) (Texas); 102 Fed. Cl. 82, 85-88 (2011) (Texas)
• Raulerson v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 9, 11-12 (2011) (South Carolina)
• Capreal v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 133, 144-146 (2011) (Massachusetts)
• Gregory v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 203, 220-222 (2011) (Mississippi)
• Jenkins v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 598, 606-13 (2011) (Iowa)
• Buford v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 522, 531-33 (2012) (Mississippi)
• Longnecker Property v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 393 (2012) (Washington)
• Howard v. United States, 964 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. 2012) (Indiana); 2012 WL 3554451 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 16, 2012) (Indiana)
• Rhutasel v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 220 (2012) (Iowa)
• Adkins v. United States, No. 09-503 (Fed. Cl. July 10, 2012) (Iowa)
• Thomas v. United States, 2012 WL 3800764 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 29, 2012) (Tennessee)
• Sutton v. United States, 2012 WL 5194058 (Fed. Cl. October 18, 2012) (California)
• Geneva Rock Products, Inc., 2012 WL 5866135 (Fed. Cl. November 16, 2012) (Utah)
• Toscano v. United States, No. 08-910 (Fed. Cl. November 20, 2012) (Utah)
• Bywaters v. United States, 2010 WL 3212124 (E.D. Texas, Aug. 12, 2010)
• Bywaters v. United States, 196 F.R.D. 458 (E.D. Texas 2000) (class cert)
• Schneider v. United States, 2008 WL 160921 (D. Neb., Jan. 15, 2008)
• Schneider v. United States, 2003 WL 25711838 (D. Neb. 2003)
• Hash v. United States, 2008 WL 818347 (D. Idaho, Mar. 24, 2008)
• Hash v. United States, 2007 WL 1309548 (D. Idaho 2007)
• Hash v. United States, 403 F.3rd 1408 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
• Blendu v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 543 (2007)
• Schmitt v. United States, 2003 WL 21057368 (S.D. Ind. 2003)
• Swisher v. United States, 262 F.Supp.2d 1203 (D. Kan. 2003)
• Lowers v. United States, 2001 WL 1200869 (S.D. Iowa 2001)
• Preseault v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 667 (2002)

These are just the title issues. I haven't even addressed the additional financial issues, environmental issues, abutters , etc. The potential impact is huge. This is not opinion. It’s not inaccurate. It’s fact. Let’s make smart decisions about how we spend our time and money. We could start by putting this idea to bed.