Lombardo, L. v. Stephens, R. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • J-S70031-18
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    LOUIS J. LOMBARDO AND ROCCO B.         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    LOMBARDO                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    Appellants          :
    :
    v.                        :
    :
    RANDALL W. STEPHENS                    :
    :
    Appellee            :        No. 967 EDA 2018
    Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 14, 2018
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County
    Civil Division at No(s): 634-CIVIL-2015
    LOUIS J. LOMBARDO AND ROCCO B.         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    LOMBARDO                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    Appellees           :
    v.                        :
    :
    RANDALL W. STEPHENS                    :
    :
    Appellant           :        No. 1051 EDA 2018
    Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 14, 2018
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County
    Civil Division at No(s): No. 634-CIVIL-2015
    BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
    MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:                        FILED JUNE 04, 2019
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Louis J. Lombardo and Rocco B. Lombardo,
    and Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Randall W. Stephens, appeal from the
    judgment entered in the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas in this quiet
    title action. We affirm.
    The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
    J-S70031-18
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo own property that shares a common
    boundary line with Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens.       The parties derive
    their respective titles to the properties from the same grantor, Boyd L.
    Bedford. Prior to the relevant conveyances at issue, Mr. Bedford owned 262
    acres of land in Wayne County (“the Farm Property”). On June 17, 1948, Mr.
    Bedford acquired title to approximately 83 acres of undeveloped land from
    A.J. Wall (“the Wall Property”), to the east of the Farm Property.
    On June 5, 1967, in exchange for $3000.00, Mr. Bedford executed a
    deed containing a general warranty of title for the Wall Property to
    Appellant/Cross-Appellee Louis J. Lombardo and Nicholas Lombardo.1 Before
    this transfer, Mr. Bedford had the property surveyed by Earl Kingsbury (“the
    Kingsbury survey”). This deed was recorded on July 6, 1967, along with the
    Kingsbury survey.         The relevant portion of Appellants/Cross-Appellees
    Lombardo’s deed is as follows:
    [Beginning] at the North West Corner hereof Being a large
    Hemlock tree Witnessed for the Corner, thence along an old
    line of Blazed trees and being in the old Warrantee line of
    the Henry Speering tract. North on Present bearing of 57
    degrees East 2721 feet to a Stones Corner witnessed,
    thence along a line of land of Jerry Gagdorus and James
    Sanford, South 8 degrees West 3120 feet to point in center
    of the Starrucca to Maple Grove road, thence along center
    of the same South 59 degree[s] West 187 feet, thence
    South 62 degrees West 300 [feet] to a point in Center [of]
    said Road, and in the Easterly line of the B.L. Bedford Home
    ____________________________________________
    1Nicholas Lombardo died on June 24, 2000, and Appellant/Cross-Appellee
    Rocco B. Lombardo acquired Nicholas Lombardo’s share of the property on
    November 9, 2000.
    -2-
    J-S70031-18
    farm, thence along same North 35 degrees West 2153
    feet to the place of [beginning]. CONTAINING 83 Acres
    and 39 Square rods of land be the same more or less subject
    to 1/3 of the road, and being so much of the same property
    deeded to B.L. Bedford by a Deed from A.J. Wall, and Louise
    R. Wall his wife by a deed dated June 16th 1948, and duly
    recorded…and according to a Survey made by Pennsylvania
    Licensed Surveyor on May 13th 1967 by Karl T. Kingsbury.
    (Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s Deed at 1; R.R. at 65) (emphasis
    added). After Appellant/Cross-Appellee Louis Lombardo paid Mr. Bedford for
    the property, Mr. Bedford had a discussion with Appellant/Cross-Appellee
    Louis Lombardo, in the presence of Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens, who
    was 9 years old. Mr. Bedford stated that the boundary line between the two
    properties was along a barbed wire fence, which ran northwest from Maple
    Grove Road to a large hemlock tree.
    On December 31, 1974, Mr. Bedford executed another deed for the Farm
    Property to himself, Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens, and non-parties
    Gladys Stephens and Matthew Stephens as joint tenants with the right of
    survivorship. This deed was recorded on January 13, 1975. Mr. Bedford died
    on May 6, 1976. Gladys Stephens and Matthew Stephens subsequently filed
    a partition action for the property jointly held with Appellee/Cross-Appellant
    Stephens. On May 7, 2003, those parties entered into a stipulation regarding
    the partition of their property. Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens acquired
    his current property by deed dated October 26, 2004, which shares the
    common boundary line with Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s property.
    This deed was recorded on May 31, 2007.            The relevant portions of
    -3-
    J-S70031-18
    Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens’ deed are as follows:
    BEGINNING at a point in the center of Maple Grove Road
    (T788), said point being the southwesterly corner of lands
    of Louis and Rocco Lombardo (Deed Book 1714 Page 286)
    and running: thence along the center of said Maple Grove
    Road the following twelve (12) courses and distances: (1) S
    65° 29’ 37” W, 111.90 feet, (2) S 70° 24’ 36” W, 137.52
    feet, (3) S 73° 50’ 27” W, 169.93 feet, (4) S 85° 50’ 33” W,
    123.86 feet, (5) N 72° 50’ 29” W, 98.64 feet, (6) N 57° 47’
    99” W, 114.06 feet, (7) N 51° 10’ 16” W, 269.68 feet, (8) N
    49° 22’ 34” W, 194.13 feet, (9) N 51° 50’ 02” W, 79.81 feet,
    (10) N 55° 32’ 17” W, 161.97 feet, (11) N 68° 31’ [40”] W,
    150.56 feet and (12) N 74° 28’ 59” W, 85.25 feet to a corner
    in said road. Thence S 17° 08’ 53” W, 151.78 feet thru lands
    of the grantor passing a #4 rebar set at 24.39 feet a #4
    rebar set. Thence S 73° 42’ 45” W, 724.36 feet thru lands
    of the grantor to a #4 rebar set. Thence N 38° 03’ 37° W,
    198.70 feet thru lands of the grantor passing a #4 rebar set
    at 177.12 feet to a point in the center of Maple Grove Road.
    Thence S 50° 41’ 01” W, 1.41 feet along the center of said
    Maple Grove Road to a corner. Thence N 12° 27’ 52” W,
    168.30 feet thru lands of the grantor passing a #4 rebar set
    at 21.79 feet to a #4 rebar set. Thence N 09° 12’ 50” W,
    127.85 feet thru lands of the grantor to a #4 rebar set.
    Thence N 00° 16’ 25” E, 181.87 feet thru lands of the
    grantor to a #4 rebar set. Thence N 06° 27’ 12” W, 835.30
    feet thru lands of the grantor to a #4 rebar set. Thence N
    71° 32’ 53” W, 414.79 feet thru lands of the grantor to a #4
    rebar set on the southerly line of lands of Thomas and Carol
    Lopatofsky (Deed Book 360 Page 192). Thence N 49° 32’
    15” E, 1124.74 feet along the southerly line of said
    Lopatofsky [lands] to a #6 rebar found on the westerly line
    of lands of Vaughn Buchanan (Deed Book 2270 Page 162).
    Thence S 40° 00’ 00” E, 3167.52 feet along the
    westerly line of said Buchanan and lands of Leon
    O’Droniec (Deed Book 1236 Page 1) and Louis and
    Rocco Lombardo passing a #4 rebar set at 3132.52
    feet to the center of Maple Grove Road, the point of
    beginning and containing 73.58 acres being more or less.
    BEING Lot 1 on a subdivision plan prepared by Christopher
    Knash, P.L.S. dated January 2000, revised November 28,
    2003 and December 6, 2003….
    -4-
    J-S70031-18
    (Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens’ Deed at 1; R.R. at 54) (emphasis
    added).   Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens’ current deed described the
    property in terms of a map prepared by surveyor Christopher Knash (“the
    Knash survey”).   The deeds and the Kingsbury and Knash surveys conflict
    regarding the common boundary line of the two properties.
    On November 13, 2015, Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo filed an
    action to quiet title.   Both parties filed competing motions for summary
    judgment, which the court denied on April 22, 2016.          In June 2016,
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo hired surveyor Alfred Bucconear to
    perform    a   survey    (“the   Bucconear    survey”),   which    concluded
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s 1967 deed and the Kingsbury survey
    accurately portrayed the correct boundary line. Appellants/Cross-Appellees
    Lombardo filed a second motion for summary judgment on April 12, 2017.
    The court held a bench trial on May 30, 2017.             During trial,
    Appellant/Cross-Appellee Louis Lombardo testified that Mr. Bedford told
    Appellant/Cross-Appellee Louis Lombardo at the time of conveyance that a
    barbed-wire fence marked the boundary line of the two properties.
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s deed and the Kingsbury survey do not
    mention this barbed wire fence.    Appellant/Cross-Appellee Louis Lombardo
    also testified that Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens was present at this
    conversation, although he was only about 9 years old. Mr. Bucconear testified
    that Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s deed call exceeds the adjoinder
    -5-
    J-S70031-18
    line by 63.95 feet, which reflects what Mr. Bedford told Appellant/Cross-
    Appellee Louis Lombardo about the barbed-wire fence at the time of
    conveyance. Mr. Bucconear also testified that a partial stone row and wire
    fence generally follow the correct boundary line.
    The court entered a verdict in favor of Appellants/Cross-Appellees
    Lombardo on July 17, 2017.          On July 19, 2017, the court denied
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s second motion for summary judgment
    as moot. On July 25, 2017, Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo filed a post-
    trial motion, which sought attorneys’ fees and costs. The court, on August 4,
    2017, vacated its July 17, 2017 verdict to schedule a hearing on
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s post-trial motion. The court held a
    hearing on October 25, 2017.         The following day, the court denied
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s post-trial motion.
    On November 2, 2017, Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo and
    Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens each filed a praecipe to enter judgment
    based on the August 4, 2017 order. That same day, the clerk of courts entered
    judgment in favor of Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens. On November 3,
    2017, Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo filed a petition to strike or open
    the judgment because the August 4, 2017 order was not representative of the
    court’s verdict. On November 7, 2017, both parties stipulated to strike the
    November 2, 2017 judgment. On November 9, 2017, the court vacated the
    October 26, 2017 order that denied Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s
    -6-
    J-S70031-18
    post-trial motion and entered a new verdict to clarify the verdict in favor of
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees    Lombardo.       The     court    expressly    adopted
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees    Lombardo’s    proposed     findings    of    fact   and
    conclusions of law, with the exception of paragraphs 20 through 26 in their
    proposed conclusions of law. The court further confirmed Appellants/Cross-
    Appellees Lombardo’s deed and reformed the deed of Appellee/Cross-
    Appellant Stephens, as specified in Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s
    exhibit 4. Finally, the court denied Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s
    post-trial request for attorney’s fees.
    Appellee/Cross-Appellant     Stephens   filed     post-trial   motions       on
    November 15, 2017, and Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo filed post-trial
    motions on November 17, 2017. Both parties filed notices of appeal, however,
    this Court quashed both appeals as premature due to open post-trial motions.
    On March 14, 2018, the court denied both sets of post-trial motions. The
    court also entered judgment in favor of Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo
    on their quiet title action and against Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo
    regarding their claim for attorneys’ fees and costs.          On March 21, 2018,
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo timely filed a notice of appeal.              The
    following day, the court ordered Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo to file
    a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
    1925(b). On March 29, 2018, Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo timely
    filed a Rule 1925(b) statement, and Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens timely
    -7-
    J-S70031-18
    filed a notice of appeal. On April 6, 2018, the court ordered Appellee/Cross-
    Appellant Stephens to file a Rule 1925(b) statement; Appellee/Cross-
    Appellant Stephens timely complied on April 9, 2018.
    At Docket No. 967 EDA 2018, Appellants Lombardo raise the following
    issues for our review:
    WHERE A GRANTOR CONVEYS LAND BY A “GENERAL
    WARRANTY DEED” RETAINING AN ADJOINING PARCEL,
    AND, THEREAFTER HIS SUCCESSOR JOINS IN THE
    ISSUANCE TO HIMSELF AS SOLE GRANTEE A CONFLICTING
    CONVEYANCE, IS APPELLEE LIABLE, IN A QUIET TITLE
    ACTION, FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE LEGAL FEES AND
    EXPENSES INCURRED BY [APPELLANTS] IN DEFENDING
    THEIR TITLE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY?
    DID THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERR IN FAILING TO
    MAKE AN AWARD OF DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF [APPELLANTS]
    AND AGAINST [APPELLEE] ON THE BASIS OF “BREACH OF
    GENERAL WARRANTY”?
    UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 21 P.S. SECTION 5 “WARRANT
    GENERALLY CONSTRUED” IS [APPELLEE] LIABLE TO
    [APPELLANTS] FOR COSTS AND EXPENSES EXPENDED BY
    APPELLANTS IN DEFENDING THEIR TITLE TO THE SUBJECT
    LAND IN A [QUIET TITLE] ACTION?
    (Appellants Lombardo’s Brief at 2).
    At Docket No. 1051 EDA 2018, Appellant Stephens raises the following
    issues for our review:
    WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW
    BY ADOPTING A COMMON BOUNDARY LINE WHICH IS IN
    CONTRADICTION OF THE WARRANTEE LINE WHICH BOTH
    SURVEYORS ACKNOWLEDGED SEPARATED THE TWO
    PROPERTIES AND BY REFERENCING AND RELYING ON
    FIELD EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH A BOUNDARY LINE WHICH
    WAS NOT REFERENCED OR CALLED FOR IN EITHER DEED
    DESCRIPTION[?]
    -8-
    J-S70031-18
    WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF
    LAW BY ALLOWING [PAROL] EVIDENCE OF A DEAD PERSON
    TO INTERPRET A DEED DESCRIPTION WHERE THE
    LANGUAGE OF THE PARTIES’ DEEDS EVIDENCE[S] A CLEAR
    INTENT AS THE RESPECTIVE BOUNDARY LINE SEPARATING
    THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES?
    WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT WAS WITHOUT SUBJECT
    MATTER JURISDICTION ON NOVEMBER 9, 2017, TO ISSUE
    A VERDICT WHEN THE COURT PREVIOUSLY VACATED ITS
    PRIOR VERDICT OF JULY 17, 2017 BY ITS ORDER OF
    AUGUST 4, 2017?
    (Appellant Stephens’ Brief at 4).
    In their issues combined, Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo argue
    Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens, as a successor in interest to Mr. Bedford,
    is legally bound to defend the title of Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo
    under the general warranty provision. Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo
    contend Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens’ May 31, 2007 deed created a
    cloud on Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s title and Appellee/Cross-
    Appellant Stephens is required to reimburse Appellants/Cross-Appellees
    Lombardo for reasonable expenses incurred in this action to quiet title.
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo conclude this Court should vacate the
    portion of the underlying judgment that denied their request for attorney’s
    fees and remand for a determination of litigation expenses. We disagree.
    In his first and second issues combined, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
    Stephens argues the language in Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s deed
    calls for an adjoinder between the Wall Property and the Farm Property, and
    -9-
    J-S70031-18
    the Disputed Tract falls within the Farm Property. Appellee/Cross-Appellant
    Stephens asserts the court’s verdict adopts a boundary line that directly
    contradicts the warrantee line acknowledged by both Mr. Knash and Mr.
    Bucconear.     Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens contends the adopted
    boundary line elevates a distance call above an adjoinder call and relies on
    extrinsic evidence outside the plain language of the deeds, in violation of the
    parol evidence rule.
    In his third issue, Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens argues the court
    had thirty days from the August 4, 2017 order, which vacated the July 17,
    2017 verdict, to enter a new verdict.         Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens
    avers the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a verdict after the
    passage of thirty days, and the November 9, 2017 verdict fell outside this
    thirty-day period. Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens contends this case was
    not overly protracted, which would allow the court to go beyond the thirty-
    day period to enter a new verdict.
    Finally, Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens responds that the court
    properly denied Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s request for costs and
    expenses because Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo possessed their land
    at all times. Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens continues that the only issue
    for the court was the determination of a common boundary line, and not
    ownership rights. Further, Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens avows he and
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo derive their titles from different
    - 10 -
    J-S70031-18
    sources, and he is not a successor in interest to Mr. Bedford with respect to
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s property.       Appellee/Cross-Appellant
    Stephens concludes this Court should vacate the portion of the verdict that
    established a new boundary line and affirm the portion of the verdict that
    denied   Appellants/Cross-Appellees    Lombardo’s     request   for   costs   and
    expenses. We agree in part and disagree in part.
    This Court will not disturb a denial of attorneys’ fees absent an abuse of
    discretion. In re Padezanin, 
    937 A.2d 475
    , 483 (Pa.Super. 2007). “A trial
    court has abused its discretion if it failed to follow proper legal procedures or
    misapplied the law.” Kessock v. Conestoga Title Insurance Co., 
    194 A.3d 1046
    , 1059 (Pa.Super. 2018). An evidentiary hearing is generally required
    for a trial court to decide a claim for attorneys’ fees, unless the facts are
    undisputed. In re Estate of Burger, 
    852 A.2d 385
    , 391 (Pa.Super. 2004),
    affirmed, 
    587 Pa. 164
    , 
    898 A.2d 547
     (2006).
    A general warranty deed implicates the following:
    § 5. “Warrant generally” construed
    A covenant or agreement by the grantor or grantors, in any
    deed or instrument in writing for conveying or releasing land
    that he, they, or it “will warrant generally the property
    hereby conveyed,” shall have the same effect as if the
    grantor or grantors had covenanted that he or they, his or
    their heirs and personal representatives or successors, will
    forever warrant and defend the said property, and every
    part thereof, unto the grantee, his heirs, personal
    representatives and assigns, against the lawful claims and
    demands of all persons whomsoever.
    21 P.S. § 5.    “Where property has been conveyed by a deed of general
    - 11 -
    J-S70031-18
    warranty, actual or constructive eviction, as a result of a defect of title, must
    be shown in order to recover on a breach of the warranty.” Kramer v. Dunn,
    
    749 A.2d 984
    , 991 (Pa.Super. 2000) (holding party is constructively evicted
    when party purchases general warranty deed to property from grantor who
    did not actually hold title).
    Our standard of review on appeal from an action to quiet title is
    deferential: “In reviewing an action to quiet title, an appellate court’s review
    is limited to determining whether the findings of fact are supported by
    competent evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, and
    whether there has been a manifest abuse of discretion.” Regions Mortgage,
    Inc. v. Muthler, 
    585 Pa. 464
    , 467, 
    889 A.2d 39
    , 41 (2005).
    It is not the role of an appellate court to pass on the
    credibility of witnesses; hence we will not substitute our
    judgment for that of the factfinder. Thus, the test we apply
    is not whether we would have reached the same result on
    the evidence presented, but rather, after due consideration
    of the evidence which the trial court found credible, whether
    the trial court could have reasonably reached its conclusion.
    Hollock v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 
    842 A.2d 409
    , 414 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en
    banc), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 
    588 Pa. 231
    , 
    903 A.2d 1185
     (2006) (internal citations omitted).
    The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure define the scope of an action
    to quiet title, in pertinent part, as follows:
    Rule 1061. Conformity to Civil Action. Scope
    *     *      *
    - 12 -
    J-S70031-18
    (b)   The action may be brought
    *     *      *
    (2) where an action of ejectment will not lie, to
    determine any right, lien, title, or interest in the land
    or determine the validity or discharge of any
    document, obligation or deed affecting any right, lien,
    title or interest in land;
    (3) to compel an adverse party to file, record, cancel,
    surrender or satisfy of record, or admit the validity,
    invalidity or discharge of, any document, obligation or
    deed affecting any right, lien, title or interest in land[.]
    Pa.R.C.P. 1061(b)(2), (3). To prevail in an action to quiet title, a party must
    demonstrate title by a fair preponderance of the evidence and prima facie
    proof of title is sufficient until the adverse party shows a better title. Hallman
    v. Turns, 
    482 A.2d 1284
    , 1287-88 (Pa.Super. 1984). An action to quiet title,
    unlike an ejectment action, does not restrict a court to finding the rights only
    of the immediate plaintiff and defendant involved in the controversy. Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Long, 
    934 A.2d 76
    , 78 (Pa.Super. 2007). Rather, an
    action to quiet title determines the “relative and respective rights of all
    potential titleholders.” 
    Id.
    When uncertainty exists in a deed due to vague or ambiguous language,
    a court may look to extrinsic or parol evidence to explain, but not vary, the
    written word. Doman v. Brogan, 
    592 A.2d 104
    , 109 (Pa.Super. 1991). See
    also Flaherty v. DeHaven, 
    448 A.2d 1108
    , 1111 (Pa.Super. 1982) (stating
    to ascertain meaning of deed when intentions of parties are unclear from
    instrument itself, court must look to language of entire instrument,
    - 13 -
    J-S70031-18
    consideration of subject matter, and conditions that existed at time of
    execution, together with surrounding circumstances). When calls of a deed
    are inconsistent, the court looks to, in order: (1) natural objects or landmarks;
    (2) artificial monuments; (3) adjacent boundaries; and (4) courses and
    distances. Doman, 
    supra at 110
    . “[W]here the terms of a deed will admit
    of two reasonable interpretations (patent ambiguity), or where the calls
    conflict when applied to the ground whereby admitting of different reasonable
    bases for division (latent ambiguity), their construction, as a rule, …[is] a
    question of fact.” 
    Id.
     Further, ambiguities in a deed are to be construed to
    effectuate the intent of the parties and any doubt will be resolved against the
    preparer of the deed. Advance Industrial Supply Co. v. Eagle Metallic
    Copper Co., 
    267 Pa. 15
    , 19-20, 
    109 A. 771
    , 773-74 (1920).
    If there is a dispute between boundaries in two conveyances from the
    same grantor, then the grantee with the first executed conveyance has
    superior title. Will v. Piper, 
    134 A.2d 41
    , 44 (Pa.Super. 1957). A survey
    made during the grantor’s life is given great weight when settling a boundary
    dispute.   
    Id.
       Consentable lines established by the parties themselves are
    given great weight, regardless of whether the line conforms to the exact
    courses, distances, and bounds of an original survey. Dimura v. Williams,
    
    446 Pa. 316
    , 319, 
    286 A.2d 370
    , 371 (1972).
    After a bench trial, “[t]he trial judge shall render a decision within seven
    days after the conclusion of the trial except in protracted cases or cases of
    - 14 -
    J-S70031-18
    extraordinary complexity.” Pa.R.C.P. 1038(c). “Except as otherwise provided
    or prescribed by law, a court upon notice to the parties may modify or rescind
    any order within 30 days after its entry, notwithstanding the prior termination
    of any term of court, if no appeal from such order has been taken or allowed.”
    42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505.
    Instantly,   the     trial   court   analyzed   Appellants/Cross-Appellees
    Lombardo’s issues as follows:
    An actual eviction did not occur in the case at bar. Here,
    [Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s] title was never
    challenged    by    [Appellee/Cross-Appellant   Stephens].
    [Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s] ownership of the
    land contained in the deed was never challenged by
    [Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens]. [Appellants/Cross-
    Appellees Lombardo] would be entitled to fees if they were
    sued to defend their title. This common boundary line
    dispute arises from the discrepancy in deed descriptions,
    rather than from a superior claim of right or lien on
    [Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s] property.        As
    such, [the c]ourt determined that, based on these facts, an
    award of attorney's fees was not warranted.
    (Trial Court Opinion in Response to Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s
    Rule 1925(b) Statement, filed June 21, 2018, at 3). The record supports the
    trial court’s rationale.    See In re Padezanin, 
    supra;
     Kramer, 
    supra.
    Further, Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo were not constructively evicted
    because Mr. Bedford had legal title to the land he sold to Appellants/Cross-
    Appellees Lombardo.        See 
    id.
        Therefore, the trial court properly denied
    Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s request for costs and attorneys’ fees.
    The trial court analyzed Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens’ issues as
    - 15 -
    J-S70031-18
    follows:
    The evidence presented at trial showed that the parties
    derived their respective titles from the same grantor, Boyd
    L. Bedford. As the intention of the parties may be shown by
    surrounding circumstances, evidence was permitted to be
    heard regarding the exchanges between the parties on the
    day [Mr.] Bedford delivered the deed to [Appellant/Cross-
    Appellee Louis Lombardo], while in [Appellee/Cross-
    Appellant Stephens’s] presence.
    On July 5, 1967, [Mr.] Bedford executed and delivered to
    [Appellant/Cross-Appellee Louis Lombardo and Nicholas
    Lombardo,] a deed which contained [the Kingsbury Survey].
    [Mr.] Bedford hired Mr. Kingsbury to perform the survey and
    either prepared or caused to be prepared [Appellants/Cross-
    Appellees Lombardo’s] deed.        The Kingsbury [Survey]
    depicts the lands legally described in the [Appellants/Cross-
    Appellees Lombardo’s] deed and the common boundary in a
    manner generally consistent with a line running along a wire
    fence line and partial stone wall.
    At this same meeting, [Mr.] Bedford described the lands
    conveyed to [Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo] by
    pointing to the fence as being the common boundary. At
    the time of the conveyance [Mr.] Bedford used the fence to
    enclose a cattle pasture, thereby treating the fence as being
    the location of the boundary of the farm he retained.
    Further,     throughout      the     course      of…litigation,
    [Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens] admitted that “we
    always believed…the common boundary line…to be close to
    the fence.”
    [The    c]ourt   found    that  [Appellee/Cross-Appellant
    Stephens’] statements and those attributed to [Mr.] Bedford
    as well as the existence and use of the fence, when taken
    together as a whole, had the effect of mandating that
    [Appellants/Cross-Appellees    Lombardo’s]      deed     be
    construed to include the 63.95 feet of the B.L. Bedford
    Home farm consistent with its legal description and the
    Kingsbury [survey].
    At trial, [Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens] introduced
    [the Knash survey], which contradicted the Kingsbury
    - 16 -
    J-S70031-18
    [survey]. The Knash [survey] similarly depicted a line
    running along a wire fence line and partial stone wall, but
    the Knash [survey] did not depict the “overlap” created by
    [Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s] deed onto the
    other lands owned by [Mr.] Bedford at the time he delivered
    the deed to the [Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo]. As
    such, there was a conflict between [Appellants/Cross-
    Appellees Lombardo’s] deed and [Appellee/Cross-Appellant
    Stephens’] deed since the common boundary line was not
    consistently described in them.
    *     *      *
    Here, there is no dispute that [Appellants/Cross-Appellees
    Lombardo’s] deed was the first executed. Therefore, any
    discrepancy was resolved in favor of [Appellants/Cross-
    Appellees Lombardo].
    *     *      *
    While [Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s] deed was
    ambiguous in its description of the common boundary as
    being along the “Easterly line of the B.L. Bedford Home
    farm,” when applying the distances recited to be along
    Maple Grove Road, the common corner of this boundary is
    described as being 63.95 feet further west, beyond the
    “Easterly line of the B.L. Bedford Home farm.”
    [The c]ourt found that the intention of the parties was that
    [Mr.] Bedford sold, and [Appellants/Cross-Appellees
    Lombardo] purchased, lands bounded by the fence line, as
    described by [Appellant/Cross-Appellee] Louis J. Lombardo
    from [Mr.] Bedford’s representations in [Appellee/Cross-
    Appellant Stephens’] presence. Pursuant to Pennsylvania
    law, this ambiguity is resolved against [Mr.] Bedford as the
    grantor who drafted or caused to be drafted the deed, and
    [Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens] as [Mr. Bedford’s]
    successor,    in  favor    of   [Appellants/Cross-Appellees
    Lombardo].
    *     *      *
    By way of procedural history, a non-jury trial was held in
    this matter on May 30, 2017. [The c]ourt entered a Verdict
    - 17 -
    J-S70031-18
    in favor of [Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo] and
    against [Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens] on July 17,
    2017.     On July 25, 2017, [Appellants/Cross-Appellees
    Lombardo] filed a Motion for Post-Trial Relief seeking an
    award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Title 21 P.S.
    Section 5. To permit argument on said Motion, [the c]ourt
    entered an Order on August 4, 2017, which vacated the
    Verdict dated July 17, 2017 and scheduled a hearing for
    September      18,    2017.      On    August   25,    2017
    [Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo] filed an unopposed
    motion to continue the hearing on the Motion for Post-Trial
    Relief, and the matter was rescheduled to October 25, 2017.
    On October 26, 2017, [the c]ourt entered an Order denying
    said Motion.      Subsequently, on November 2, 2017,
    [Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens] filed with the
    Prothonotary of Wayne County a Praecipe to Enter
    Judgment in favor of [Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens]
    and     against    [Appellants/Cross-Appellees  Lombardo]
    pursuant to the “Final Judgment” dated August 4, 2017,
    which vacated the Verdict of July 17, 2017. As such “Final
    Judgment” was in contradiction of [the c]ourt’s findings in
    the Verdict entered July 17, 2017, [Appellants/Cross-
    Appellees Lombardo] filed a Petition to Strike or Open
    Judgment on November 3, 2017. The parties stipulated to
    strike the judgment entered on November 2, 2017, and said
    Stipulation was made an Order of Court on November 7,
    2017.
    For clarification purposes, [the c]ourt entered a
    comprehensive, second Verdict on November 9, 2017,
    which found in favor of [Appellants/Cross-Appellees
    Lombardo]       and    against    [Appellee/Cross-Appellant
    Stephens] and also denied [Appellants/Cross-Appellees
    Lombardo’s] Motion for Post-Trial Relief to include an award
    of attorney’s fees. Subsequently, both parties filed Motions
    for Post-Trial Relief and Notices of Appeal of [the c]ourt’s
    Order dated November 9, 2017.
    On January 12, 2018[,] the Superior Court quashed the
    consolidated appeals as premature because post-trial
    motions were pending in [the trial c]ourt, and as such, no
    final judgment was entered.      On remand, [the c]ourt
    entered two (2) Orders dated March 14, 2018, each of
    which: (1) denied both parties’ post-trial motions; and (2)
    - 18 -
    J-S70031-18
    entered final judgment on behalf of [Appellants/Cross-
    Appellees Lombardo] and against [Appellee/Cross-Appellant
    Stephens]. The Order dated March 14, 2018, which entered
    final judgment, is the subject of the instant appeal.
    [Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens] now contends that
    [the c]ourt lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue a new
    Verdict on November 9, 2017, and subsequently a judgment
    on March 14, 2018. [Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens]
    relies on Pa.R.C.P. 1038(c), which states in relevant part
    that after a trial without jury “[t]he decision may be
    made…in writing and filed forthwith…. The trial judge shall
    render a decision within seven days after the conclusion of
    the trial except in protracted cases or cases of extraordinary
    complexity.”
    Merriam-Webster defines “protracted” as “to prolong in time
    or space.” As this matter was filed in 2015 and a brief
    review of the filings will show, this matter constituted a
    protracted case.    Therefore, issuing the Verdict dated
    November 9, 2017 and subsequently a judgment on March
    14, 2018 was proper.
    *     *      *
    Here, the [c]ourt acted properly within its discretion to
    modify and rescind the orders complained of.
    (Trial Court Opinion in Response to Appellee/Cross-Appellant Stephens’ Rule
    1925(b) Statement, filed June 21, 2018, at 2-6). The record supports the trial
    court’s rationale. See 42 Pa.C.S.A § 5505; Regions Mortgage, Inc., 
    supra;
    Advance Industrial Supply Co., supra; Doman, 
    supra;
     Hallman, 
    supra;
    Will, 
    supra.
     Appellants/Cross-Appellees Lombardo’s deed and the Kingsbury
    survey both agree on the heading of the boundary in dispute.              The
    conversation between Appellant/Cross-Appellee Louis Lombardo and Mr.
    Bedford, however, occurred after Appellant/Cross-Appellee Louis Lombardo
    - 19 -
    J-S70031-18
    paid Mr. Bedford for the property and created an ambiguity. Therefore, the
    court properly used this conversation and the fence line to clarify the
    intentions of the parties at the time of conveyance. See Dimura, 
    supra;
    Doman, 
    supra.
     Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
    Judgment affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 6/4/19
    - 20 -