Nossaman Achieves Key Litigation Win for Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
A Nossaman team led by Brad Kuhn, Kevin Day and Jillian Friess Leivas was victorious on behalf of our client, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) in Sonoma County Superior Court on March 19, 2026. The win was noted in a lengthy Daily Journal article “Judge upholds SMART’s fee title to rail corridor.” (subscription required)
The case—Muelrath v. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District—involved a quiet title action in which numerous property owners adjacent to SMART’s railroad corridor claimed they owned the underlying fee interest in the corridor and SMART only had an easement that precluded it from constructing a multi-use pedestrian and bicycle pathway. The plaintiffs were seeking more than $30 million in damages by claiming SMART was infringing on their property rights. Aside from the monetary exposure, the case had significant ramifications as SMART has funding and construction contracts in place to construct miles of new pathway. If the decision had been unfavorable, hundreds of additional property owners could have potentially brought similar claims and SMART may not have been able to move forward with its future projects.
Highlighting the victory, Daily Journal wrote, “A Sonoma County Superior Court judge ruled that the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District holds fee title to its railroad right of way, rejecting neighboring landowners’ claims and dismissing quiet title challenges to a bike and pedestrian path within the corridor.” Daily Journal added the decision will have “implications for transit agencies integrating recreational uses alongside active rail lines.”
The article noted, “The court rejected arguments for most plaintiffs, applying the seven- factor framework from Machado v. Southern Pacific Transportation.” It went on to say Judge Rene Auguste Chouteau’s decision emphasized that deed language such as “all the right title and interest of whatsoever nature or kind in and to the same” and “this conveyance is absolute” reflected a fee conveyance. Additionally, Judge Chouteau noted references to a right of way were “descriptive, not limiting,” and the deeds lacked the phrase “for railroad purposes only.” The Judge also noted the use of “through,” rather than “over and across” supported fee intent.
Commenting to Daily Journal, Brad said the ruling aligns with more recent authority adding, “More recent court decisions have clarified that the presumption favoring easements does not necessarily make sense, even to older railroad deeds, so this decision is on point with those more recent decisions.”
Regarding the path, the article said state the court “distinguished federal Rails-to-Trails Act cases, including Toews v.United States, holding they do not apply where a railroad remains active and the path is ancillary.” Brad told Daily Journal “The decision clarifies that the ‘Rails to Trails’ cases where a railroad is abandoned are not applicable to active railroad corridors.”
