City of Columbus asserts ownership of land as railroad files motion to dismiss lawsuit
Last week, lawyers representing the Columbus Consolidated Government and Genesee & Wyoming Railroad Services appeared before U.S. District Judge Clay Land after the railroad company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit the city filed to recover about 90 acres of land it claims should have been returned to it because of a 19th-century agreement.
The city filed a lawsuit last August against Norfolk Southern and other railroad companies, including Genesee & Wyoming, to recover land it claims should have reverted to city ownership because of an agreement made over 175 years ago.
CCG, represented by the Columbus law firm Page, Scrantom, Sprouse, Tucker & Ford, argues the railroads requested land from the city for a depot in 1847, which was agreed upon because of the benefits a passenger depot would provide to Columbus citizens.
Resolutions were passed granting the railroads’ use of the land under limitation with the intent that it would be used for public good, according to CCG’s complaint, and that the land was never given to the railroads.
By the 1970s, the railroads ceased service in Columbus, the complaint says, with depots being sold or demolished. This triggered the terms that returned the land and title to CCG, the city argues.
Since then, the railroad has remained on the property and uses it for nonpublic purposes, the complaint says.
CCG’s lawsuit seeks to restore its control of the land and recover the “losses and damages CCG has suffered by the railroad’s continued use of the property.”
The lawsuit was originally filed in the Superior Court of Muscogee County, but it was sent to federal court in the Middle District of Georgia.
Motion to dismiss Columbus railroad lawsuit
The motion to dismiss filed by Genesee & Wyoming Railroad Services argues the property comprises an “integral part of the nation’s rail system.”
They say in the motion that CCG’s claims fall under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA), a federal law that granted the Surface Transportation Board (STB) federal jurisdiction over rail transportation.
CCG can’t state a “plausible claim for relief under ICCTA”, the motion says. Genesee & Wyoming argues a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
In response, CCG argues, in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the factual allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true.
This case concerns “voluntary agreements” accepted by the railroads, CCG says, and they claim the case comprises exclusively nonregulatory claims arising from these agreements.
CCG argues the case should not be in the federal court but should be resolved in Superior Court, where it was initially filed.
During the Feb. 25 hearing, the railroad’s attorneys said, in previous cases dealing with reversionary interests, these situations are treated as regulations and not “voluntary agreements.”
There is no evidence of a written agreement or negotiation on the part of the railroads, their attorneys told Land.
During the hearing, Land pressed the railroad’s attorneys on what legal relief there is for property owners if a railroad came onto their land, occupied it and used it for railroad purposes without the permission of the landowner.
The railroad’s attorney argued, in the past, these cases that dealt with reversionary interests were settled in state courts. Federally, property owners could make their case to the STB, they said, not a district court.
CCG’s attorneys agreed that the case should not be in federal court. They argued Land presided over another case that found the issue was over property interests and sent it back to a state court.
Rather than dismiss the case, they asked Land to do the same here and send the case back to Superior Court.
Land said he would issue a written order “in due course.”
CCG attorney speaks after hearing
The city has been trying to negotiate with Norfolk Southern on a willing basis since the 1960s or 1970s, attorney Jack Schley, of Page, Scrantom, Sprouse, Tucker & Ford, told reporters after the hearing.
“During those discussions, it was always a back and forth about whether the railroad could relocate the yard somewhere else more strategic for them to benefit the city,” he said.
This is the first time Norfolk Southern and its associated railroad companies have been brought into court to discuss the issue, Schley said. It is the first time the city has asserted that it owns the land, he said.
When it comes to the question of jurisdiction and determining where this case should be litigated, Schley said that it’s a complicated situation with lawyers on both sides saying that the case doesn’t belong in the Middle District of Georgia federal court.
“We filed the case in the Superior Court of Mucogee County,” he said. “They’ve removed it to the federal court, arguing that these federal laws control the resolution of the case. Our city’s position is that that’s incorrect.”
The hearing went well for the city, Schley said, adding that all their key issues that needed to be addressed were raised.
“The court was asking very good questions, getting right to the heart of the matter,” he said. “I think both sides presented the law that is at stake here very well. But, ultimately, I think it’s the city’s facts that will prevail in the case. And the city has good facts.”
It took a long time to bring this case to court because there are no deeds, Schley said.
“It was a question of ‘how are they there,’” he said. “And a deed is how you would figure that out. But, because they don’t have a deed, it took a long time to really track it down.”
Research found they acquired the land through a city council resolution, he said.
“And that’s where we found the language that’s so important to the resolution,” Schley said.
This land is public land, he said, and it’s not benefiting the public now with a private railroad utilizing it.
Getting this property back would benefit Columbus significantly, he said, especially because it is between downtown and midtown.
If Land dismisses the case, Schley said, the next moves would be calculated.
“But it won’t be over,” he said. “The city will recover something in some way, in some form, at some time.”
This story was originally published March 6, 2026 at 4:24 PM.
