Federal District Judge John Shabaz Friday issued a summary judgement finding for property owners along the former Chicago Northwestern railroad right of way in Bayfield County. The judgement is the latest event in the long-running dispute over who has the title to the strip, which runs from the south county line to the City of Bayfield.

The corridor has been the subject of a heated fight between property owners and those interested in using part of the former rail line to create a permanent recreational corridor through the county.

The judgement was issued in a civil lawsuit filed by the Samuel C. Johnson 1988 Trust, Imogene P. Johnson, Dean and Kathryn Johnson and John and Kay Hawksford, all property owners on the disputed strip. The plaintiffs commenced the action to quiet any possible claims of an interest in the property by Bayfield County and the United States.

According to the memorandum and order issued by the Western District Court of Wisconsin, the plaintiffs argued that the United States never acquired the right to reclaim the property, or, in legal terms, a reversionary interest in the railroad right of way. Further they said that even if they had, Bayfield County forfeited any interest it might have had in acquiring the land for a public highway because they failed to do so within a year of when the rail line was abandoned in 1978.

The court noted that in November 2006, the United States filed a disclaimer of interest in the property, and the plaintiffs said the disclaimer deprived the court of jurisdiction in the matter.

Bayfield County, meanwhile, maintained that the United States indeed retained a reversionary interest, that the right of way had not yet been abandoned within the meaning of the law and that the disclaimer had no effect on the county's rights to establish a highway upon abandonment.

Shabaz ruled that the U.S. disclaimer of interest applied only to the interests of the United States and not to any independent rights the county had. However, he said, Bayfield County has never acquired a legal interest under the relevant section of federal law, only a potential future statutory transfer of the United States' reversionary interest.

"For Bayfield County to acquire a present interest in the property, three contingencies had to occur," Shabaz said. "Retention of a reversionary interest by the United States, abandonment by the railroad, (and) establishment of a highway by Bayfield County."

Shabaz said based on the disclaimer, the first condition could not occur.

"At any time prior to abandonment, the United States is free to alter the way it treated its reversionary interests," Shabaz said.

He noted the federal government had done just that when it had acted to take away the future interests of adjacent landowners by creating the reversionary interest clause in the first place.

"It is equally free to foreclose Bayfield County's future contingent rights by disclaiming any reversionary interest in the property," he said.

He also said Bayfield County never held a right to the property independent of the United States' reversionary interest.

Shabaz said the county was incorrect in using the Supreme Court ruling in an earlier Bayfield County trail case known as the Mauler Decision as backing for its position that the county had an independent right to the property. He said this reasoning was flawed because the U.S. disclaimer of interests in that case came after the county had established a highway on that section of the property. That was not the case in the current dispute, he said.

Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief quieting their title to the property against Bayfield County's claims under those federal statutes," Shabaz said in ordering the summary judgement declaring the plaintiffs own the former railroad property.

On Sunday, one of the plaintiffs, John Hawksford said he was pleased by the decision.

"Private property rights have finally been upheld," he said, declining further comment.

Bayfield County Board Chairman Bill Kacvinsky also declined to comment, pending a review of the decision by county officials.

Bayfield County Administrator Mark Abeles Allison said the county had only received notification about the court's decision Friday afternoon.

"All along the county has stressed its interest in working with the property owners and trail users. We have also stressed the need to get a determination on the case," he said. "It appears that the decision of the U.S. District Court granted summary judgement to the plaintiffs based on the federal disclaimer of a reversionary interest for these properties. I expect that over the next several days the county's attorneys will review the decision and prepare a presentation to the county board."