CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the court will grant summary judgment to Amtrak on all claims. 1 . That court was abolished in 1997, and its jurisdiction transferred to this court. See 45 U.S.C. § 719(b)(2). 2 . Amtrak also notes that affirmative covenants are commonly considered to be encumbrances. See, e.g., Boyle v. Lake Forest Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 538 F.Supp. 765, 769 (S.D.Ala.1982) (stating that "an affirmative covenant running with the land” is an "encumbrance”); Magraw v. Dillow, 341 Md. 492, 671 A.2d 485, 490 (1996) ("The word [encumbrance] has no precise meaning but includes ... covenants running with the land at the time of conveyance ....”) (brackets in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); O’Neill v. Van Tassel, 137 N.Y. 297, 33 N.E. 314, 315 (1893) (<HOLDING>); Blain v. Taylor, 19 Abb.Pr. 228
holding that covenant to maintain and repair fences runs with the land and is an encumbrance holding that pleadings cannot be regarded as summary judgment evidence holding that the plaintiff was entitled to conclude that the district court regarded the motion as timely this being the case unique circumstances exist requiring that her motion be regarded as  effectively terminating the running of the time for appeal holding that a covenant running with the land which compels the owner to rebuild and repair a wall in the same manner as when originally constructed  cannot be regarded in any other light than as a perpetual incumbrance holding that the owner of the land could not bring a 93a action against a prior owner of the land who was not the seller because there was no business connection between the two parties