That's all I had to read.

“As I understand, the locomotive has been at our train depot for over 50 years and many generations have come to identify that locomotive with our downtown and train heritage,” the email states. “To that end, the City of Hattiesburg would like to keep the old 300 in its home at the depot.

So, make an offer to buy it, dopes.

That's the way this works.

The city's own email kind of shoots themselves in the foot by acknowledging they don't own it. Additionally, they state they've spent city money to maintain the locomotive previously, and then then say they could only be in a position to expend public funds on it if they own it. Nothing about the city's case is making sense to me besides the "abandonment" argument.

I also find it curious that they only now after fifty years care about and dispute the ownership of it, and magically finding that they (allegedly) own a third of the title after finding out that the new owner may be taking it elsewhere. But that's for the courts to decide, I suppose.

I'd be curious as to whether or not the city even tried to investigate the ownership of the locomotive, before simply assuming it had been abandoned.

It is interesting that the Valley Railroad wants this engine. They already have 3 operational steam locomotives. Go visit that operation around Christmas time. That is one busy railroad!

/Kevin Madore

That’s Hattiesburg, Mississippi, not CT.

There's a little more detail to this story than the first lines of the history given in the newspaper.

Paraphrasing the latter part of the article:

[Valley Rai8lroad has laid] out some ownership history. Fred Kepner bought it from the Bonhomie and Hattiesburg Southern in 1968. At that time, Kepner was granted permissionto keep the locomotive in the B&HS engine house in Hattiesburg, but subsequently he had to move out when that house was demolished. Kepner then appealed to the Mississippi Great Southern Chapter of the NRHS to store the locomotive, and at that time the locomotive was moved to the present location.

Kepner passed away in October 2021, and this is the reason his sole heir is now trying to sell the locomotive. The heir secured an agreement to sell to the Oregon Coast Scenic Railroad (which is a nonprofit). At this point, the Valley Railroad Company seems to have asked OCSR whether they could buy it, and had the locomotive assessed for restoration potential. Deciding it was a candidate, Valley has contracted to buy the locomotive, with the intent to move it to the Valley's shop in Connecticut (this is where the CT comes into it) sent a mechanical crew to Hattiesburg to determine whether it would be viable to restore the engine to steam operation.

At this point Ann Jones, acting chief administrative officer for the city of Hattiesburg, emailed Valley with some form of request to keep the locomotive in Hattiesburg (someone can probably get the text of that e-mail and post it). The newspaper quoted her in part as saying “As I understand, the locomotive has been at our train depot for over 50 years and many generations have come to identify that locomotive with our downtown and train heritage. To that end, the City of Hattiesburg would like to keep the old 300 in its home at the depot... “The City of Hattiesburg would like to request that the locomotive be transferred to the City of Hattiesburg’s ownership. By doing so, the city would then be in a legal position to expend public funds on the locomotive and begin to develop a preservation plan for the train. As a public entity, we are eligible for several preservation opportunities, that, as a privately owned train, the locomotive has never qualified before.”

Valley now says that it was only after that email was sent that the City of Hattiesburg asserted a claim to ownership of the locomotive. Apparently Valley's view of the situation is backed up with 'several bills of sale and claims of ownership throughout the years.' (if I am reading the story correctly at this point)

Hattiesburg City Attorney Randy Pope has found, through some kind of title search, that a ⅓ interest in ownership was apparently held in trust for a woman who has passed away, presumably later than Mr. Kepner, and the city claims it purchased that interest from the woman's estate. This certainly thickens the plot both for )CSR and Valley if the locomotive was supposedly sold with a good title of ownership...

Reading between the lines, I am unpleasantly reminded of the shenanigans in Port Arthur, and I don't think the city has any right of adverse possession whatsoever unless it can prove they filed some objection to the locomotive remaining where it did. Of course the fun comes if either Valley negotiates to acquire the ⅓ interest, or a ⅔ majority ownership entitles Valley to move the engine strictly for restoration work... I suspect there will be the same legal fun we saw with 3463 in Topeka before there is any kind of fair resolution.

Something utterly missing from anything I have seen the City saying is what they propose to do with an operating steam engine majority-owned by an out-of-state organization. My guess is that this is dog-in-the-manger retrospect that tries to override a valid pair of agreements, not a seriously factual claim of adverse possession or anything else.

Perhaps one 'win-win' would be the City expending public funds for one-third of the restoration expenses, and then construct an improved maintenance and storage facility in Hattiesburg. Valley could then lease 'their ownership interest' to Hattiesburg, and perhaps reach some kind of agreement for the engine to be transported between Connecticut and the South along the general lines of 2156 but with a shorter dwell.

Barring that, I concur that it's a seller's market for Valley if the City wants even majority ownership of the locomotive for financing improvements. One would think that a minimum 'price' would be the whole of what Valley paid OCSR for ownership in good faith...

Posters in this thread may have overlooked this line in the article:Anyone here familiar with Mississippi's laws on abandoned property?

I am inclined to disagree with you. It seems to me that if your locomotive is stored on land that is sold then you either move the locomotive off the land or you reach an agreement with the new land owner. You don't get to just leave your locomotive on somebody else's property for 22 years and still retain ownership of it.

Not overlooked, as that's the basis for Hattiesburg's abandonment claim.

I'd be inclined to ask then, what were the terms of the sale regarding removal of the property (locomotive) from the land, and did the city ever inform the owner that they must remove it in 'x' amount of time or they would seize it? I must admit I am unfamiliar with Mississippi law on abandonment of tangible property, and on top of that we haven't seen the sale agreement on the land itself, so we really don't know. Some states require that notice of the abandoned property be posted and the last known owner contacted (if possible) before the government/municipality can seize, auction, or dispose of it- Mississippi is one of these but I cannot say that it necessarily applies here.

Valley only recently bought this engine, so if Hattiesburg’s case has merit and what they claim is true, OCSR sold Valley an engine they had no right to sell- especially if it's true that the city owns 1/3 of the title and that was not disclosed to Valley during the sale. If this ends in the city's favor, I wouldn't be surprised to see Valley go after OCSR for damages related to the bad sale.

It will be interesting to see how this one shakes out in the courts.

Hi All
After reading the newspaper and the fast so called interest the City of Harrisburg, now has for the locomotive. The Valley Railroad in Connecticut already owns 2/3 interest of the locomotive, while the city only owns 1/3 of the interest.

The city of Harrisburg, can either buy out the Valley Railroad 2/3 interest and own the locomotive with full title. Or the Valley Railroad, can try to cut a deal with the city, to either buy the city 1/3 interest or cut a deal in which the city leases the locomotive to the Valley Railroad.

Since the Valley Railroad already owns that 2/3's of the locomotive, there should not be any hassle, on who owns the locomotive, with papers to prove ownership, they should be able to move the locomotive to Connecticut just from that fact alone. Pat.

Wasn't George Hart somehow involved in the B&HS #300 as well?

Hmm, ... Well folks, this acquisition took an unexpected turn.

I believe the City's best (and most likely to succeed) claim might be the ownership interest they acquired in the locomotive if they can substantiate the claim sufficiently. Their "abandonment claim" is undercut by a number of pieces of evidence introduced so far. The first being the tone of their initial email asking that the locomotive "stay" in its longtime home; and the second being that the City made a point of acquiring an interest in the locomotive from a party they contacted after researching title to the locomotive. If the City felt they had a good basis for their abandonment argument, they would not have taken any action to acquire some form of title in an asset they already owned by virtue of its "abandonment". They would certainly not be asking another party for the locomotive to "stay" either.

In addition, in order to perfect "title" to an abandoned piece of property, there is a process that must usually be followed. While the process varies from State to State, the process usually requires public notice, and then a formal Court-approved procedure to remove the asset from a public space. My guess is that the City did not follow any of the procedures for dealing with abandoned property because they presumed the locomotive was likely owned by the local NRHS / historical society and never bothered to investigate the title to the locomotive until it became apparent that the locomotive was sold to an entity with the financial means to actually remove the locomotive from the site.

This turn of events leads me to ask the obvious question; Is it known just how strong the Kempner ownership interests in all the locomotives he allegedly owns really is? It sounds to me that some parties might want to review their Bill of Sale to insure that they have obtained good title to their equipment.

I'm sure that taxpayers of Hattiesburg, MS are going to end up spending a significant amount of money trying to perfect title to the locomotive. As for the Valley RR, if the City is able to successful demonstrate that Kempner did not have full title to the locomotive, I'd give serious consideration to suing the Kempner Estate for damages if the estate falsely claimed it had full title to the locomotive.

This is going to be one hell of a mess to clean up. I would suspect that the Valley RR would have walked away from the locomotive if it had known of the title issues beforehand.

Just my opinion ...

My suspicion is that the city's argument hangs not on 'abandonment' but on 'adverse possession'. I don't know if it's the city's responsibility to periodically inform an owner that they perceive the train is in their possession while on their land, without asking for rent or giving written permossion.

How did this individual acquire 1/3 ownership in the first place? Title searches are done in real estate transactions via review of government documentation. How did the city attorney do the same on a locomotive? Is there some unspecified government clearinghouse for rail equipment transactions?

Strange argument made by the city, particularly since they previously claimed outright ownership via abandonment. The city appears to be throwing sh$t against a wall hoping that something sticks.

Im not sure how it works in Mississippi, but at least here in MA government agencies have no legal authority under adverse possession. Because they have eminent domain powers, they’re barred from adverse possession.