I know what you mean. Locomotives are so big and heavy that they tend to stay put, so there is rarely a need to prove ownership of a locomotive. Locomotive ownership title is much less of an issue than it is with something small and valuable that can be stolen.

In the case of #3463, the question of ownership has little practical effect until a party wants to move the locomotive to a different location and modify its condition. Considering the cost of transporting a locomotive, if one were to transport it, one would want to make sure he or she has clear title to it. You wouldn’t want to pay to return it if somebody else proved it was theirs.

Wouldn't a ruling in favor of the locals throw out a century of case law regarding abandoned property once owned by non individual entities like corporations, non-profits, etc.? Would the courts want to say that anyone, including those who had nothing to do with it originally, can come along years later and "re-up" the old entity and lay claim to all property that was seemingly abandoned? I would think courts would be loath to do something like that. It would open a huge can of worms and I really don't see why it would be justified at all.

Steve

Was the locomotive abandoned property? If it was, who had the right to claim it? And what would have been the proper method of laying claim to it?

Mr. Travis. Please look up the case for C&O 2700. This will answer a lot of your questions regarding this situation. You and your group will not like the answers but at least they're answers.

The group originally created to maintain the engine forfeited as a business entity in the 70s. The locomotive became abandoned property at that point.

What is your source for that information?

It appears that the TC&SFR does have the law on its side:
" (d) Upon the filing of the certificate in accordance with K.S.A. 17-6003, and amendments thereto, the corporation shall be renewed or reinstated with the same force and effect as if its articles of incorporation had not become inoperative and void or had not expired by limitation. Such reinstatement shall validate all contracts, acts, matters and things made, done and performed within the scope of its articles of incorporation by the corporation, its officers and agents during the time when its articles of incorporation were inoperative or void or after their expiration by limitation, with the same force and effect and to all intents and purposes as if the articles of incorporation had at all times remained in full force and effect. All real and personal property, rights and credits, which belonged to the corporation at the time its articles of incorporation became inoperative or void, or expired by limitation and which were not disposed of prior to the time of its renewal or reinstatement shall be vested in the corporation after its renewal or reinstatement, as fully and amply as they were held by the corporation at and before the time its articles of incorporation became inoperative or void or expired by limitation, and the corporation after its renewal or reinstatement shall be as exclusively liable for all contracts, acts, matters and things made, done or performed in its name and on its behalf by its officers and agents prior to its reinstatement, as if its articles of incorporation had remained at all times in full force and effect."

http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2012/b2 ... 70_0002_k/

So with the issue of "abandonment" being solved, the only issue here is if the owner of the property had at any point filed any notice to evict the locomotive from the property, or made any demands upon the TC&SFR to pay rent on the space occupied by the locomotive. Either of these actions could open up a situation in which the locomotive could be forfeited to the property owner. If no actions were taken then by all rights ownership still remains in the hands of the TC&SFR. At least that is my reading of the law.

It is the argument of the lawyers representing CSR, but as Hot Metal has determined there is no issue of abandonment, my statement's redundant.

It occurs to me, though, that a part of the statute relevant to the current discussion is:



Seems to me that the general issue of what was done with the locomotive in the years after the group "forfeited as a business entity in the '70s" may be relevant here.

We had a somewhat similar situation in Shreveport, Louisiana years ago. Many downtown properties were tax-delinquent, sometimes for many years, and any attempts to find the owners of record came up short. Then the casinos came to town... and all sorts of people came out of the woodwork te re-establish full title so the flippin' could commence.

I don't have time to search Kansas law on abandoned property but there are surely applicable precedents for what happens to the major tangible assets of corporations that are shut down, especially if they pose a health or safety issue or potential liability for something like the City of Topeka.

Overmod, the only entity that could legally have taken possession of the locomotive during the period of TC&SFR inactivity would have been Shawnee County, the property owner. Noboy else had a dog in the fight. If they contend that they never owned the locomotive, then ownership never transferred away from the TC&SFR.

Lets see the paper trail. Apparently there is a donation agreement or some record of the original donation to the TC&SFR. the next document that we need to see is the one where either the TC&SFR disposed of the locomotive (which did not happen) or one where Shawnee County foreclosed on the locomotive due to some violation of the agreement (was there an agreement?) allowing TC&SFR to park their loco on county land or claiming the locomotive by adverse possession.

I think this entire situation could be resolved by the TC&SFR and CSR reaching an agreement where TC&SFR ownership is recognized, and then CSR is granted a lease on the locomotive with certain milestones attached. Perhaps a bond posted that would guarantee its return to Topeka should the CSR's plans fall through.

Meanwhile, the TC&SFR can promote the restoration project and use it as a means of enlisting support for the construction of a proper museum facility in Topeka on land that they OWN. Once the CSR has completed their experimental project the loco could then be returned to Topeka, perhaps still in working order, for exhibit or operation out of Topeka. The CSR project could become the main exhibit of this new museum; teaching people about steam technology and the theories that were put to the test to bring steam propulsion into the 21st. century.

I can see this issue turning into a win-win for all if the TC&SFR would simply get in front of this project instead of applying the brakes.

The thing is that the head of the 'reformed' TC&SFR is one of the most outspoken critics of the whole idea of rebuilding 3463 out of its original configuration, and will almost certainly (I only qualify that so as not to speak for him) not want CSR to obtain possession of the locomotive in any way. He has communicated quite clearly that he intends for the locomotive to remain in Topeka, and will raise local funds to care for it there.

I would not use the 'previous history' of the organization as any kind of guide as to how the reformed organization will behave. I think this whole affair has been a 'wake-up call' for people in Topeka, and I hope that if they prevail in gaining custody of 3463 they will make sure her future is as assured as it would have been under CSR's care.

Rick,

Thanks for posting the information indicating that TC&SFR is still active. Regarding the possibility of a claim by Shawnee County:

On 7/26/12, Shawnee County told me that they are unable to locate any record of ever owning the locomotive or transferring title for it to someone else. They also told me that Great Overland Station told them that GOS was unable to locate any such records as well.

Regarding your wish that TC&SFR stop applying the brakes:

TC&SFR contends that they have owned the locomotive since 1956. CSR says they own the locomotive and intend to move ahead with their plans without the approval of TC&SFR.

I agree that CSR could offer to relinquish their claim of ownership in exchange for a lease for the purpose of modifying the locomotive as an experiment. However, until such an offer is made by CSR and accepted by TC&SFR, the TC&SFR action of “applying the brakes” is simply to stop what they see as an illegal taking.

What's the current status of this project? Has the ownership issue been resolved? Have they figured out that the hockey pucks take more energy to make than they create? Is it still active, or did reality kill the fires?

The Topeka Capital-Journal has an article from March of this year on its website (I searched Locomotive 3463). Interesting reading, especially the comments.

I am computer inept, otherwise I would post a link to the article.

Jason Midyette