HANCOCK, Maine — The state supreme court has ruled against a landowner in Hancock and Steuben who sued the state over its rights and responsibilities to a former rail corridor that crosses his land.
Dale Henderson, owner of a logging company and a realty firm that own the properties, challenged the state’s claim that it had a right to the corridor even though no rail service had operated along it since 1985, when Maine Central Railroad ceased operations. Maine Department of Transportation subsequently took over rights to the corridor, which currently is used for the Down East Sunrise Trail, an 87-mile, multi-use trail that stretches between the town of Hancock in Hancock County and Pembroke in Washington County.
Henderson, who lives in Orrington, also contended that at the least, DOT should be required to erect a fence along the sides of the corridor where it crosses his property in order to keep people off his land.
Earlier this month, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled against Henderson and sided with the state. DOT holds a valid easement to the corridor in Washington County and owns the corridor outright in Hancock County, the court wrote in a July 19 decision. It also indicated that, though Maine Central Railroad at one time may have been under obligation to build and maintain a fence along the corridor, DOT is not subject to the same obligation.
Attempts Monday to contact attorneys on either side of the dispute were unsuccessful. A message left Monday at Henderson’s real estate company, Oak Leaf Realty, was not returned.
According to the Law Court decision, Henderson’s logging company bought property in Steuben on Dec. 22, 2008, and filed suit against the state two days later. The ruling does not indicate how much property in Steuben is owned by the logging company, but it says the rail corridor crosses the land for approximately 845 feet.
In Hancock, Henderson’s Oak Leaf Realty owns “several thousand acres of land,” according to the decision. The corridor crosses that property for approximately 21,400 feet, or four miles, the document indicates.
At one point, Henderson barricaded the old rail line where it crosses onto his land in both towns. Those barricades later were removed as the old rail bed was rebuilt and then opened to public use as a trail.
Ted Talbot, spokesman for MDOT, said Monday that the department did not have much comment on the legal issues the Law Court weighed in on. The decision, he said, speaks for itself.
But he added that the department is pleased that the court found that the use of the corridor for rail service has not been abandoned. As part of the trail project, the rail bed bed along the entire length of the corridor between Hancock and Pembroke was rebuilt for possible rail use and is maintained with that possibility in mind, he said.
Officials have said that, since the old rail line was discontinued in 1985, much of it had fallen into disrepair. Before the trail project was completed, many sections of the rail line had been flooded by beaver dams or had washed out from erosion, officials have indicated.
Despite the disuse and formerly deteriorated condition of the rail line, state law makes it clear that an abandonment of rail service does not mean the rights-of-way for rail in that corridor have been abandoned, according to the Law Court decision. In addition, in 2007 the Legislature wrote in statute that MDOT “reserves the right to terminate at any time the use of the Calais Branch rail corridor for recreational purposes and to use the Calais Branch rail corridor for railroad purposes,” the decision indicates.
The court also wrote that though a prior owner of the corridor once had agreed in the late 1800s to maintain fences along both sides of the corridor to keep cattle off the rail line, a subsequent agreement in 1929 released that owner and subsequent owners from that obligation.
The department, the Law Court concluded, does not have “to reconstruct and maintain in perpetuity a fence to protect [the realty firm’s] nonexistent cattle from a currently nonexistent rail line.”
Follow BDN reporter Bill Trotter on Twitter at @billtrotter.
So now the public can trash this mans land at will. I am sure he will be picking up garbage from his land everyday as the public doesn’t care where they throw things. After all it is not their land.
First of all I will say that this land is not nor ever was HIS land. It was owned by the railroad and now the state. There is no dispute about ownership if you look at the way the laws are written around the property of a railroad. Dale is simply trying to get more land for free!
Secondly, I guess you’ve never driven down the main road in any town and looked at all the trash along the side of it. I live on rt9 in brewer and constantly pick up trash and Cigarette butts all over my front yard. I also ride several hundred miles of ATV trails every year, including the Sunrise trail and have yet to see much if any trash along the sides of the trails. Most if not all ATV riders are pretty considerate and do not leave trash all over the place. Its usually the 1% that cause the problems that the 99% clean up and or fix!
You and Larry Marshalls Jr posts are right on the money..Dale is very upset because without the fences “his” fat and big deer (# of them over 250lbs)can be shot while standin on the right of way…this isn’t about trash,it’s about havin a lil haven to take your fatcat buddys to shoot home grown deer(and very well feed) so you look like a big man..period.The court made the right call on this one
I bought property in the unorganized part of Aroostook County, several hundred acres, and allowed publc access as the previous owners had. One year of inconsiderate hunters, disrespectfull atv’s and snowsledders was all it took for the gates to go up and the land to be closed. I am an Aroostook native but I will not allow what I’ve paid for to be trashed by the public.
So previous to you owning the land it was used for years and years without issue. You own it for ONE year and it gets trashed? I think not, and if you were a true resident of that county, you wouldn’t close it down. Only left-wing hippies who live out of state, like Roxanne Quimby, put up gates.
or maybe the previous owner simply put up with it. I am not left wing, but no one tells me what to do with my property. So in your world it is okay to leave your refuse on the property of others.
I agree…I wouldn’t allow having others trash my property….it’s not about “out of staters” as it is about not putting up with careless people who don’t give a damn!
I do not leave refuse behind, never have and never will. And I have been snowmobiling for many years now, and have traveled thousands of miles across this state. I have never seen, cups, cans, bottles, paper, or other trash along the trails. Along roadway crossings, and car bridges, yes, but that comes from vehicles, not us. You forget that there are many, many people who venture through the woods of Maine; hunters, fisherman, hikers, cross country skiers, etc. All people that a gate is not going to keep out. And the industry of snomobiling has been around in Maine for a few decades now; and only since people from out of state, who come here wanting the “peace and quite” that they didn’t get in New York, have we had issues of gates, and trail closings. Hence my remark about being from out of state.
Out of state, my next door neighbor, who cares? I care when I’m picking up crap because my back field looks like a mini landfill. When the atvs destroy half of my hay field, that costs me money because I then have to buy hay to feed my animals. Yes, I have also been a sledder and gone wheeling for most of my life. But MY parents taught me to be respectful. It’s not a right to use other’s land. By the way, I’m most definitely NOT a “left wing hippie” as you called them.
Darn those people from away! They throw beer cans and cigarette packs and styrofoam cups all over this state!
No, people are just getting more and more inconsiderate. We have also closed our land down to sledders and atvs. You’re right, it didn’t just happen overnight. But after years of feeling like I’m doing community service picking up trash along the road and people not staying on trails thus destroying fields, etc., I’d had enough. Abuse it and lose it.
We own land along a trail used by snowmobiles. For the most part they are respetful, however a few feel they have the “RIGHT” to use the trail. They often go off the trail and access places they shouldn’t. Neighbors on a tree farm had issues with snow machines running over their Cristmas trees. The ATV people feel they have “RIGHTS’ as well. A few make large mud ruts and tear up the fields. With rights come responsibilities. A few have forgotten this.
Then HE can put up a fence.
Maybe those who use the trail could be good stewards and erect a fence for them. Or maybe the trail users could get together and pick up the trash once a month. Why does it always have to be one person’s responsibility? If you use it take care of it!
They probably took his land for immenent domain way back when for the railroad. A hiking trail now???? I don’t see how this is justified.
He bought the land well after the rail bed was built and used, the land that was the rail bed, now Sunrise trail , was never his land.
Incorrect, the railroad had an easement to use the property. LIke I said earlier owners of railroads can abandon and rail bank, thus ensuring the corridor is protected.
Private Property is the foundation of Public Justice. Today they came for Dale Henderson. Maybe tomorrow they will come for you. We are not hanging together so its easier for them to hang us separately.
You are correct that private property is the foundation, however you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about in this case as this land NEVER was his property. It was owned by the railroad and now the state. Dale is trying to dispute very clearly written laws that show who owns this property and how they became owner of it.
It is his property. The State DOT has an easement to use it. Once a rail corridor is abandoned the property reverts to the landowner. In this case it was likely abandoned and then rail banked. Rail banking allows a railroad corridor to be put in “reserve” so that rail use can be returned. Rail banking prevents the landowners from taking the property, or more accurately protects the corridor from being “chopped” up by the land abutters. This is a process reviewed by the Surface Transportation Board.
If you want privacy on your private property, don’t by land with a state owned corridor through it or any other form of easement you don’t like. Problem solved.
Given that Henderson filed suit two days after owning it means he clearly knew about and purchased the land with hopes of extinguishing the corridor. He was wrong and he lost.
Which “they” want to do, why?
Dale seems to want something for nothing… again?
You got to be kidding me! The State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State? (Sarcasm)
The supreme court is just another joke on a long list of Government jokes!
Sounds like in this case they interpreted the law pretty reasonably.
And if you have a private crossing to access your property from one side to the other of the tracks, the state demands $200 a year from you as a lease fee. But the railroad pays nothing to use the old tracks. Sort of not fair.
Dale wants to charge people who want to use the trails I guess.
Someone has to foot the insurance bill. Blame the lawyers and insurance companies.
The rail bed was not, is not “his land” . Dale likes to gate up all the property he buys and have himself his own little game preserve where he can fatten up the critters and take them when ever he likes. Going to be a bit harder to do now, I guess.
and he invited his friends in green to hunt there whenever they want!
The land was never his. As a realtor, his deed would have proclaimed the easement and terms and Dale has no excuse for trying to claim it as his. We have acreage and know where the public trails are and don’t harass people that use them. Buyer beware. Don’t buy something knowing or having the opportunity to know full well and then turn around and sue. What a waste of time and money.
all he does is buy land and close it off he did it in aurora to glad the state beat him
As much as I appreciate trails being made available for public use, I can see that the landowner may have a point. If the original purpose of the right-of-way was to accommodate trains (which tend not to stray off their designated path), then it’s a bit unfair for the state to change the rules after the fact. Perhaps Mr. Henderson should fence his own land … nothing illegal about that. Really high stockade fencing along the corridor would certainly reduce the flow of trespassers. He could even sell advertising space along the fence surface to offset some of the cost.
He could open a gentlemen’s club with an attached adult toy store. Maybe a bar. Name it “Oasis in the Woods”
Ick.
Ick away, but IT IS his property and he can do what he would like, right? That boundary was established in multiple posts! It is the State of Maine’s proeprty they can do what they want. Not directed at you LLPVT but to others, is this a case of; the State can do what they want because we agree with the use?
I absolutely agree that he can do as he likes with his own land (within the bounds of local zoning regulations, obviously) … hence the suggestion of fencing it. The way I read the article, it looks like he actually DOES own one of the parcels in question, the state merely has an easement, which allows them to use part of it. I wish I knew why the railroad was obligated to put up fencing where the DOT is not, but the article doesn’t address that bit.
My “Ick” comment referred to the fact that there are seldom any actual “gentlemen” to be found in what is commonly called a “gentlemen’s club”.
They are all gentlmen!! LOL
It is my understanding that railroads were required to place fences to protect livestock. This action was common practice in years past. The action benefits the land abutter and the railroad.
Those old “required fences” kill moose trying to jump it.. I’ve seen it where one tried to leap over the six foot box wire fence only to tangle it’s hind hoofs through the top box then slip in through the lower box and snare itself, looked like a terrible death,, the state should be cutting out these snares as well as picking up all the creosoted rail ties just tossed into the ditch / water shed by the rail company’s of the past :-/
According to state law there is no reason why he can’t put up his own fence. So if that is what he wants then let him do it.
I have a question. What happens if someone gets hurt on the trail- going through this man’s property- or anyone’s for that matter. Let’s say he gets thrown off his ATV and lands on the private property. Who is at fault and can the private landowner get sued? Just curious.
Landowners in Maine are protected from this sort of thing.
Good, now maybe this bully will shut up for a while!