Witner, J. v. Titus, K. ( 2017 )

J-A27010-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JEREMY D. WITNER AND RACHEL A. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
WITNER, HIS WIFE, ROBERT BRIAN PENNSYLVANIA
SELERT AND MICHELLE A. SELERT, HIS
WIFE
Appellants
v.
KYLE G. TITUS AND ALLYSON M. TITUS,
HIS WIFE, ROBERT G. PUGH AND
DEBORAH PUGH, HIS WIFE, ROBERT
JOSEPH PUGH, BRANDON PUGH AND
KAREN PUGH, HIS WIFE
No. 764 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment Entered February 8, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County
Civil Division at No(s): 13-0597
*
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED JANUARY 31, 2017
Appellants, Jeremy D. Witner and Rachel A. Witner, his wife, Robert
Brian Selert and Michelle A. Selert, his wife, appeal from the judgment
entered after a non-jury verdict in favor of Appellees, Kyle G. Titus and
Allyson M. Titus, his wife, Robert G. Pugh and Deborah Pugh, his wife,
Robert Joseph Pugh, Brandon Pugh and Karen Pugh, his wife, and against
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A27010-16
Appellants.1 Appellants challenge the trial court’s determination that
Appellants failed to establish either a prescriptive easement or an easement
by implication over Appellees’ property. We affirm.
The trial court accurately summarized the history of this case. See
Trial Court Opinion, 6/26/15, at 1-8. Therefore, a detailed recitation of the
factual and procedural history is unnecessary. We review a verdict following
a non-jury trial as follows.
Our appellate role in cases arising from non-jury trial verdicts is
to determine whether the findings of the trial court are
supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court
committed error in any application of the law. The findings of
fact of the trial judge must be given the same weight and effect
on appeal as the verdict of a jury. We consider the evidence in a
light most favorable to the verdict winner. We will reverse the
trial court only if its findings of fact are not supported by
competent evidence in the record of if its findings are premised
on an error of law. However, where the issue . . . concerns a
question of law, our scope of review is plenary.
Stephan v. Waldron Elec. Heating and Cooling, LLC, 100 A.3d 660, 664
(Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and brackets omitted). Further, the fact-finder is
____________________________________________
1
Appellants purport to appeal from the denial of post-trial motions on
February 8, 2016. See Notice of Appeal, filed 3/9/16. This is simply
incorrect. “Orders denying post-trial motions . . . are not appealable. Rather
it is the subsequent judgment that is the appealable order when a trial has
occurred.” Harvey v. Rouse Chamberlin, Ltd., 901 A.2d 523, 525 n.1 (Pa.
Super. 2006) (citations omitted). Here, judgment was entered by order on
February 8, 2016. Despite this error, this Court will address the appeal
because judgment has been entered on the verdict. See Mount Olivet
Tabernacle Church v. Edwin L. Wiegand Division, 781 A.2d 1263, 1266
n.3 (Pa. Super. 2001). We have corrected the caption accordingly.
-2-
J-A27010-16
free to accept or reject the testimony of both expert and lay witnesses, and
to believe all, part or none of the evidence. See Terwilliger v. Kitchen,
781 A.2d 1201, 1210 (Pa. Super. 2001).
On appeal, Appellants raise two issues. The trial court, in its June 26,
2015 opinion, as well as its February 8, 2016 opinion, has thoroughly
reviewed the claims on appeal and disposed of all arguments on the merits.
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the relevant law, the certified record,
and the well-written opinion of the Honorable Roger N. Nanovic. We have
determined that the trial court’s opinions, as well as its findings of fact and
conclusions of law supporting the March 4, 2015 verdict, comprehensively
disposes of Appellants’ issues on appeal, with appropriate references to the
record and without legal error.2 Therefore, we will affirm based on those
decisions. See Trial Court Opinion, dated 6/26/15; Trial Court Opinion, dated
2/8/16.
Judgment affirmed.
____________________________________________
2
Through their brief, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in finding
that the 68-acre tract was acquired by John and Mary Gerhard on March 1,
1940, as both John and Mary Gerhard were deceased as of that date. See
Appellants’ Brief, at 20. The trial court concedes that it erred in making this
finding, however, the trial court concludes, and we agree, that this error
does not in any way impact the trial court’s ultimate finding. See Trial Court
Opinion, 2/8/16, at 4 n. 2. It was harmless.
-3-
J-A27010-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/31/2017
-4-
Circulated 01/13/2017 11:22 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
JEREMY D. WITNER AND,
RACHEL A. WITNER, HIS WIFE,
ROBERT BRIAN SELERT AND,
MICHELLE A. SELERT, HIS WIFE,
Plaintiffs
v. NO. 13-0597
KYLE G. TITUS AND
ALLYSON M. TITUS, HIS WIFE,
ROBERT G. PUGH AND
\ e-:"
)
\ , . . ..-~
DEBORAH PUGH, HIS WIFE, \ \
o-~•
\ \
ROBERT JOSEPH PUGH, \\ i._;
BRANDON PUGH AND
KAREN PUGH, HIS WIFE,
Defendants
\
\
\
'\
-
d)
\
Cynthia S. Yurchak, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiffs
Kim Roberti, Esquire Counsel for Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nanovic, P.J. - June 26, 2016
The ultimate issue in this case is Plaintiffs' right, if
any, to use a private road located on the northern edge of
Defendants' adjoining properties as a means of ingress to and
egress from Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs premise their
claim to an easement as arising from adverse use, and by
implication, necessity, express grant, and estoppel. Each is
addressed below.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
All of the parties' properties are located in Packer
Township, Carbon County, Pennsylvania, in an area between Wetzel
Run Drive on the north and Quakake Road on the south. Both
[ FN-28-15]
1
Wetzel Run Drive and Quakake Road run roughly in an east-west
direction. Both are public roads which intersect with
Pennsylvania State Route 93 to the east.
In 1850, all of the parties' properties were encompassed
within a 412 acre tract of property owned by Dennis Bauman.
(Plaintiffs Exhibit No.6). By deed dated April 1, 1853, Dennis
Bauman conveyed 68 acres of this property to John Steiner.
(Plaintiffs Exhibit No.7). All of Defendants' properties are
contained within this 68 acre tract. By deed dated August 10,
1855, Mr. Bauman conveyed 40 acres of his property to Charles
Brandenberg. All of Plaintiffs' properties are contained within
this tract. The 68 and 40 acre tracts are adjacent to one
another, with the 68 acre tract lying on the western side of the
40 acre tract.
The relative location of Plaintiffs' and Defendants'
properties to one another (not to scale) are depicted on
Appendix A of this opinion. Also shown is the location of the
disputed right-of-way, now named Meyers Drive,1 in relation to
the parties' properties and Wetzel Run Drive, as well as where
1
What is now known as Meyers Drive was previously part of Pine Tree Lane. In
late 2012, early 2013, the Defendants requested the supervisors in Packer
Township to rename that portion of Pine Tree Lane crossing the northern end
of their properties as Meyers Drive in honor of Joseph Meyers who had once
owned their properties, was a relative of many of them, and was a respected
citizen in the Township. Before this name change, Defendants' home mailing
addresses were for Pine Tree Lane. Even today, Grover Gerhard's home mailing
address is 220 Pine Tree Lane. Grover Gerhard's property was part of the 40
acre tract.
[FN-28-15]
2
Quakake Road and a right-of-way granted by Hattie Gerhard to J.
Homer Gerhard in 1941 are located. Finally, Appendix A shows
the location of some other properties and features or
characteristics of the immediate area referred to in the text of
this opinion.
We do not know when farming began in the area, but clearly
by 194 0 most, if not all, of the 68 and 40 acre tracts were
being farmed, as well as many of the surrounding properties. In
1941, John Homer Gerhard ("Homer") owned and was farming the 68
acre tract, and Hattie Gerhard ("Hattie") owned and was farming
the 40 acre tract. Hattie's husband, Samuel 0. Gerhard, who had
acquired the 40 acre tract in 1913, died on March 2, 1938. On
February 28, 1941, Hattie granted Homer a 15 foot wide right-of-
way along the western edge of her property, 850 feet in length,
beginning on Quakake Road and running north to the southern end
of Homer's property. (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 26).
At the time of this conveyance, two farming roads existed
on either side of Hattie's property one along the entire
length of the boundary between the 68 acre and 40 acie tracts,
and the other along the entire length of the boundary between
the 4 0 acre tract and the adjacent property to the east, also
farmed. Meyers Drive, which runs in a west/east direction from
Wetzel Run Drive, intersected with the north/ south road on the
western side of Hattie's property at its northern terminus and
[FN-28-15]
3
connected at this intersection with another dirt road (now known
as Pine Tree Lane) which ran across the northern end of Hattie's
property, also in a west/east direction. At the easternmost end
of this other road, it intersected with the north/ south road
running along the eastern side of Hattie's property. All of
these roads existed at least as early as February 28, 1941.
These roads were all dirt paths running along the edge of
farmers' fields. They were wide enough to accommodate farming
equipment and motor vehicles - approximately ten feet in width -
and for the most part, they were unimproved, some consisting of
only two tire tracks. Some were better defined and more
permanent than others, remaining in the same location year after
year due to the frequency with which they were used and their
destination. This included Meyers Drive which provided direct
access to Wetzel Run Drive, a public road. Others, sµch as the
road on the northern end of Hattie's property, were plowed under
yearly to take full advantage of the length of the field for
planting.
These roads were used by the owners of the 68 and 40 acre
tracts, who farmed these and surrounding fields, and their
families - including Hattie, her husband, and her children - for
farming and for traveling between properties and gaining access
to surrounding public roads, such as Wetzel Run Drive and
Quakake Road. Meyers Drive for instance was used by Hattie, her
[ FN-28-15]
4
husband, and her children, not only as a means of . access to
Wetzel Run Drive while moving farming equipment between fields,
but also for visiting family and friends, for moving
construction equipment and materials, and for miscellaneous
reasons. On occasion, Samuel 0. Gerhard used this road to
gather peonies. The roads were shortcuts between public roads.
The use of Meyers Drive in particular by Hattie and the
owners of her property over the years, including Robe.r t; Selert
at the present time, has been far in excess of twenty~one years,
and it has been continuous, open, visible, and uninterrupted
since the late 1930s. What is unclear and unproven is when it
started and how. At the outset, was it permissive, or hostile
and adverse? And when did it first become open and continuous?
In all likelihood, the antiquity of the beginning use of Meyers
Drive makes this unknowable.
Important also is knowing who the users of these ~oads were
and their relationship with one another. Samuel 0. Gerhard and
Homer's father, Charles Gerhard, were brothers. Samuel was
Homer's uncle. Homer owned the 68 acre tract between November
10, 1941, and August 19, 1961. At that time the property was
conveyed to his daughter, Mary E. Meyers, and her husband,
Joseph Meyers. When the four lots located on the northern edge
of the 68 acre tract were conveyed to the Defendants, Kyle and
Allyson Titus, Robert and Deborah Pugh, Robert Joseph Pugh, and
[ FN-28-15]
5
Brandon and Karen Pugh, in each instance a twenty-foot-wide
earthen pathway along the northern edge of the property conveyed
was reserved by the grantor as a means of access to. remaining
lands of the 68 acre tract situate on the east. Joseph Meyers
died on April 26, 2002. After his death, the balance of the 68
acre tract was conveyed by Mary Meyers to her daughter, Deborah
Pugh, and her son-in-law, Robert G. Pugh, on November 7, 2002.
Defendants Robert Joseph Pugh and Brandon Pugh are Defendants
Robert G. and Deborah Pugh's children.
As to the 40 acre tract, title to this property was
transferred by Hattie to her son, Raymond S. Gerhard, and his
wife, Verna E. Gerhard, by deed dated September 23, 1953.
Eugene Gerhard, who at different times purchased various
properties from Homer for farming, is Raymond's brother. The
three lots at the northern end of the 40 acre tract were
transferred by Raymond and Verna Gerhard to their three
children, Grover Gerhard, Donald Gerhard and Mildred Selert, and
their respective spouses, in 1975 and 1976. In each case, the
deeds of conveyance reserved and excepted to the grantor a
twenty foot right-of-way across the northern end· of the
properties conveyed. In addition, the deed to Grover Gerhard
excepted and reserved a 20 foot right-of-way along the western
side of the property conveyed. The deed to Mildred Selert also
excepted and reserved a twenty foot right-of-way along the
[FN-28-15]
6
eastern side of the property, which is depicted on a map
attached to the deed as connecting with an existing earth road
located along the eastern edge of the 40 acre tract.
On August 8, 1977, Raymond Gerhard conveyed a 1.3 acre lot
to Nancy C. Hinkle; this lot is to the immediate south of the
properties previously conveyed to Donald Gerhard and Mildred
Selert and their spouses.2 This lot is now owned by Robert
Selert. By deed dated January 19, 1978, Raymond and Verna
Gerhard conveyed the balance of the 40 acre tract to Arnold and
Mildred Selert, who in turn conveyed this property to their son,
Robert Selert, one of the Plaintiffs, on January 19, 1978.
Appendix B to this opinion charts the family relationship
between the farmer and current owners of the 68 and 4 6 acre
tracts.
Rachel A. Witner, another Plaintiff, is Robert Selert's
daughter. The property now owned by Rachel A. Witner and her
husband, Jeremy D. Witner, previously consisted of two separate
lots: the western half of this property is the same lot which
Raymond and Verna Gerhard originally conveyed to Donald and
Patricia Gerhard, and the eastern half is the same property
which Raymond and Verna Gerhard originally conveyed . to Arnold
and Mildred Selert. Arnold and Mildred Selert conveyed this
2
The deed for this conveyance was not placed in evidence, and we do not know
what, if any, rights-of-way were granted or reserved for access to this
property.
[FN-28-15]
7
property to their son, Edward J. Selert, and his wif~, Rebecca
A. Selert, on June 25, 1990. Edward and Rebecca Selert built a
home on this property in 198 9, which burned down in 19 9 6, and
was not rebuilt. While residing in this home, Edward and
Rebecca Selert used Meyers Drive to gain access back ~nd forth
to their home. The Wi tners became the owners of the western
half of their property on January 29, 2010, and of the eastern
half on March 8, 2011.
In October 2009, Defendants erected a gate on Meyers Drive
near its intersection with Wetzel Run Drive. Almost two years
later, on June 21, 2011, the Witners commenced this suit by
filing a claim for access to their property pursuant to the
Private Road Act, 36 P.S. §§ 2731-2891, in the Carbon County
Clerk of Courts office.3 This action was subsequently amended to
include additional counts and to join Rachel Wi tner' s parents,
Robert B. Selert and Michelle A. Selert, as claimants. On the
basis of In re Opening Private Road for Benefit of O'Reilly, 22
A.3d 291 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011), Plaintiffs' claim under the Private
Road Act was stricken and the case was then transferred to the
law side of the court and assigned the present docket number.
A bench trial was held before the court on August 28, 2014,
October 6, 2014, December 3, 2014, and December 4, 2014.
3
This suit was conunenced less than two weeks before Defendants had Robert B.
Selert, Michelle A. Selert, and Rachel A. Witner arrested for trespassing on
Meyers Drive on July 4, 2011. (Plaintiffs Exhibit Nos. 42-44). These
charges were dismissed by the magistrate.
[FN-28-15]
8
DISCUSSION
Prescriptive Easement
A prescriptive easement is created by adverse, open,
notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted use of land for a
period of twenty-one years. Newell Rod and Gun Club, Inc., v.
Bauer, 597 A.2d 667, 669-70 (Pa.Super. 1991) (noting·that the
chief distinction between the doctrines of "adverse possession"
and "prescription" is that "in adverse possession the claimant
occupies or 'possesses' the land of the fee owner, whereas in
prescription the claimant makes some easement-like use of it").
The use is open and notorious if it is sufficiently visible
and manifest to place a landowner exercising reasonable
vigilance on notice of the claimed usage. Boyd v. Teeple, 331
A.2d 433, 434 (Pa. 1975) (continuous use of a roadway over a
servient estate establishes open and notorious use); see also
Watkins v. Watkins, 775 A.2d 841, 846 (Pa.Super. 2001).
Continuous use is use which evidences "a settled course of
conduct indicating an attitude of mind on the part of the user
or users that the use is the exercise of a property right."
Keefer v. Jones, 359 A.2d 735, 737 (Pa. 1976). A use is
"uninterrupted" if "those against whom the use is adverse do not
initiate and bring to successful conclusion legal proceedings or
otherwise cause a cessation of the use." RKO-Stanley Warner
Theaters, Inc. v. Mellon Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 436 F.2d 1297,
[FN-28-15]
9
1301 n.14 (3d Cir. 1970). Here, the Plaintiffs have met their
burden of proof as to these three elements beginning in the late
1930s with Hattie and Samuel O. Gerhard's use of the 40 acre
tract and Meyers Drive to access Wetzel Run Drive.
Prescriptive rights must be established by a user with
hostile intent, and not through indulgence, permission or mutual
accommodation. The word "hostile" as an element of adverse use
does not mean "ill will" or "hostility," but implies an
assertion of rights adverse to that of the true owner. Cf.
Watkins, 775 A.2d at 846 (discussing elements for adverse
possession) . Where one uses an easement whenever he sees fit,
without asking leave, and without objection, it is adverse and
an uninterrupted adverse enjoyment for twenty-one years cannot
be afterwards disputed. Adshead v. Sprung, 375 A.2d 83, 85
(Pa.Super. 1977). Where a use has been open and continuous into
the indefinite past such that how, when and why the use began
predates living human memory and is incapable of present proof,
the use is "presumed to have been in pursuance of an unqualified
grant [i.e., a prescriptive easement), and the burden of showing
the contrary is upon the party denying the presumption.11 Wedge
v. Schrock, 22 A.2d 305, 309-10 (Pa.Super. 1941); see also
Predwitch v. Chrobak, 142 A.2d 388, 389 (Pa.Super. 1958).
However, where a familial relationship exists, "permissive use
will be presumed, thereby negating the element of hostility."
[FN-28-15]
10
Watkins, 775 A.2d at 846. Not only is "[t]he use of the
disputed land deemed permissive when a familial relationship
exists," the familial relationship need not be with "an
immediate family member." Id. at 847 (emphasis in original).
Further, if a use commences permissively, it will be deemed to
continue as permissive "in the absence of a clear showing that
the user brought home his intention to make an adverse use
without recognizing the rights of the owner." Gehres v. Falls
~, 948 A.2d 249, 252 n.2 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (quoting Wanczycki
v. Svoboda, 36 Lehigh L.J. 59, 64 (1974)).
Samuel 0. Gerhard, who died on March 2, 1938, acquired the
40 acre tract on May 1, 1913. Upon his death, this property
passed to his widow, Hattie Gerhard, who conveyed title to her
son, Raymond S. Gerhard, and his wife, Verna E. Gerhard, on
September 23, 1953. Raymond and Verna then transferred title to
their "da uqht.e r , Mildred L. Selert, and her husband, Arnold R.
Selert, on January 16, 1978.
The 68 acre tract was acquired by Samuel Gerhard's father
and mother, John and Mary Gerhard, on March 1, 194 0, · who later
transferred this property to their grandson, John Homer Gerhard
("Homer"), on November 10, 1941. Homer and Raymond were
cousins. The property was next conveyed by Homer to his
daughter, Mary E. Meyers, and her husband, Joseph Meyers, on
August 19, 1961.
[FN-28-15]
11
As is evident from this recital, during the twenty-one year
span from March 1, 1940 to August 19, 1961, the relationship
between the owners of the 68 acre and 40 acre tracts varied from
that of father- and mother-in-law (John and Mary Gerhard) and
daughter-in-law (Hattie Gerhard); to nephew (Homer) and aunt
(Hattie); to first cousins (Homer and Raymond Gerhard); to
second cousins (Mary Meyers and Mildred Selert). These familial
relationships are all close and raise a presumption that the use
of Meyers Drive by the owners of the 40 acre tract was
permissive. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to rebut this
presumption. Rather, consistent with this p re sumpt i on , Eugene
Gerhard, Samuel Gerhard's son and Raymond Gerhard's brother,
testified clearly that Meyers Drive existed during this time
period and was used freely by his immediate family. Because of
this familial relationship, Plaintiffs' predecessors' use of
Meyers Orive was not hostile. See also Sterner v. Freed, 570
A. 2d 107 9, 10 82 (Pa. Super. 1990) (where a familial or fiduciary
relationship exists, permissive use will be presumed).
The presumption of a permissive use by virtue of the
familial relationship between the owners of the 68 and 4 0 acre
tracts continued at least until the erection of the gate by the
Defendants in October 2009. At that time, Deborah· Pugh and
Robert Selert, the principal owners of these two t.r act s , were
third cousins. The erection of this gate is the first time that
[FN-28-15]
12
the owners of the 68 acre tract made clear that the prior
permissive use was over.
Nor did the owners of the 40 acre tract at any time prior
to this date assert that their use by a predecessor in title of
Meyers Drive was other than permissive. Margoline v. Holefelder,
218 A.2d 227, 229 (Pa. 1966) (holding that a prior permissive
use by a predecessor in title will be deemed to continue until
the contrary is shown); Orth v. Werkheiser, 451 A.2d 1026, 1028
(Pa. Super. 1982) (holding that permissive use by a predecessor
in title is personal to that predecessor, is non-assignable, and
that adverse use by a successor owner if continued for over
twenty-one years will ripen into a prescriptive easement).
Though disputed, we accept as true and corroborative of a
permissive use that Robert Selert sought permission from both
Robert G. Pugh and Kyle G. Titus to allow his daughter, Rachel
Witner, to use Meyers Drive as a means of access to her
property.4
4
A use which is permissive to one property owner becomes adverse for purposes
of calculating the prescriptive period when continued hostilely by the
purchasers of that property. Orth v. Werkheiser, 451 A.2d 1026, 1029
(Pa.Super. 1982). Consequently, in relation to the Witner property which was
severed from the 40 acre tract in 1975 and 1976, adverse use of Meyers Drive
by the new owners for a period in excess of twenty-one years will support a
prescriptive easement. However, in this regard, the evidence is
insufficient. No evidence was presented as to what use Donald Gerhard made
of Meyers Drive following the conveyance to him of the western half of what
is now the Witner property in 1975 by Raymond and Verna Gerhard. With
respect the eastern half of the Witner property, even if it were established
that Edward and Rebecca Selert's use of Meyers Lane between 1989 and 1996
when their home burned down was adverse, this usage is far short of the
twenty-one years required to obtain a prescriptive easement.
[FN-28-15]
13
Easement by Implication
To establish an easement by implication, the· following
three factors must be proven: (1) first, a separation of title;
(2) that, before the separation takes place, the use which gives
rise to the easement, shall have been so long continued, and so
obvious or manifest, as to show that it was meant to be
permanent; and ( 3) that the easement must be reasonably
necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the land granted or
retained. Bucciarelli v. Delisa, 691 A.2d 446, 449 (Pa. 1997);
Possessky v. Diem, 655 A. 2d 1004, 1008 (Pa. Super. 19 95) . When
these factors exist, the grant or reservation of an easement is
implied from the conveyance, and the owner of the property
subject to the easement is charged with notice of it and
knowledge of the facts that could have been acquired by the
exercise of reasonable diligence. Anania v. Serenta, 119 A.
554, 556 (Pa. 1923).
The existence of the first factor is not in dispute. The
68 and 40 acre tracts were once held in common ownership: by
Dennis Bauman in 1850. However, as to the second factor,
Nor are the Witners able to tack any adverse usage claimed by Robert Selert
to the benefit of their property. Mr. Selert did not acquire title to his
property until 1978, after title to the Witner property was severed from the
40 acre tract. Therefore, even if Robert Selert was able to establish that
his use of Meyers Drive after 1978 was adverse and continuous for a period of
twenty-one years or more, such right, at best, would attach to the property
owned by him and for whose benefit the prescriptive easement would be
appurtenant. See Lindenmuth v. Safe Harbor Water Power Corp. , . 163 A. 159,
161 (Pa. 1932) (an appurtenant easement is attached to a specific property
and may not be separated from it; it is not independently alienable).
[ FN-28-15]
14
Plaintiffs have failed to clearly prove that Meyers Drive
existed when ownership of the 68 and 40 acre tracts was severed.
The burden of proving the existence of Meyers Drive at this time
was upon Plaintiffs. Stein v. Bell Telephone Co., 151 A. 690,
692 (Pa. 1930).
The 68 acre tract was conveyed by Dennis Bauman in 1853,
and the 40 acre tract in 1855. At that time, it is unclear
whether the right-of-way for the public road between Weatherly
and Tamaqua, which at some point crossed through the 68 acre
tract and would have provided a clear means of access to this
property from a public road, then existed. See Plaintiffs
Exhibit Nos.20 (Mary Ulshafer Tract - Parcel #2) and· 38 (1885
Beers Atlas) . More importantly, what is clear is that the 1855
deed for the 40 acre tract has as its southern boundary the
public road leading from the L&S Turnpike to Tamaqua, .now known
as Quakake Road, thus establishing open access to this ·property.
(Plaintiffs Exhibit Nos. 10 and 38).
Neither deed from Dennis Bauman references Meyers Drive.
In fact, the furthest back Plaintiffs' evidence goes to show the
existence of Meyers Drive is either 1937 or 1938, near the time
of Samuel Gerhard's death. Eugene Gerhard, who testified he was
nine years old when his father died, provided this testimony.
However, at this time, Meyers Ori ve was at best a narrow dirt
farmer's path running along the edge of a field. Further, 1937
[FN-28-15]
15
is eighty-four years after title to the 68 and 40 acre tracts
was severed. This evidence does not prove that at the time
title was severed, the critical point of our analysis, there
existed an open, visible, continuous and permanent use of Meyers
Drive, or that such use was necessary to the beneficial
enjoyment of the 40 acre tract. To the contrary, no evidence or
testimony was presented as to how the 68 and 40 acre tracts were
used in relation to one another - or even what use was made of
these properties - by Dennis Bauman before the 1853 conveyance
to John Steiner. Moreover, Plaintiffs' contention that Meyers
Drive proceeded in an easterly direction to intersect with what
is now State Route 93 is not supported by the credible evidence.
See Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 38 (1885 Beers Atlas) which, while
depicting Wetzel Run Drive, contains no reference to Meyers
Drive or any other public road at this location extending to
State Route 93.
Easement by Necessity
An easement by necessity may be implied upon the division
of property if: (1) title to the properties has been held by one
person, (2) this unity of title has been severed by the
conveyance of one of the tracts, and (3) the easement in
question is necessary for the use of the severed tract. Graff
v. Scanlan, 673 A.2d 1028, 1032 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996). "It is a
well-settled principle of law that, in the event property is
[FN-28-15]
16
conveyed and is so situated that access to it from the highway
cannot be had except by passing over the remaining land of the
grantor, then the grantee is entitled to a way of necessity over
the lands of the grantor." Possessky, 655 A.2d at 1010
(citation and quotation marks omitted). Further, the measure of
necessity is that of actual necessity, not mere convenience.
Graff, 673 A.2d at 1032. As with an easement by implication,
Defendants do not dispute that the first two prongs of this test
have been met.
As previously stated, at the time Dennis Bauman conveyed
the 68 acre tract in 1853, he retained ownership of the 40 acre
tract. However, because the legal description of this 40 acre
tract bounds on a public road, it is clear this property is not
landlocked. See Phillippi v. Knotter, 748 A.2d 757, 760-61
(Pa.Super. 2000) (determining that plaintiff failed to establish
the existence of an easement by necessity over an adjoining
parcel because a portion of plaintiff's property was accessible
from a public road), appeal denied, 760 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2000).
Nor was the northeast corner of the 40 acre tract, what is
now the Wi tners' property, landlocked by this conveyance. The
doctrine of an easement by necessity is not meant to "ensure
that each portion of [a] singular property has access to a
public road," rather only that the property has some access.
Phillippi, 7 4 8 A. 2d at 7 61. "The right of way from necessity
[ FN-28-15]
17
over the land of another. is always of strict necessity, and
the necessity must not be created by the party claiming the
right-of-way. It never exists when a man can get to his own
property through his own land." Ogdon v. Grove, 38 Pa. 487( 18 61) (quoting M' Donald v. Lindall, 3 Rawle 4 92, 4 93 ( 1827)) .
Plaintiffs nevertheless argue that due to distance, slope
and wet areas, access to the Witners' property along the eastern
boundary of Robert Selert's property from Quakake Road is
extremely difficult and burdensome, such that use of Meyers
Drive is not simply a matter of convenience, but a question of
actual necessity within the meaning of this term. See
Application of Little, 119 A.2d 587, 589 (Pa.Super. 1956). This
notwithstanding, to the extent a necessity exists to justify the
grant of an implied easement to the Witners' property, it was
not created when title to the 68 and 40 acre tracts was severed
in 1850, but by the conveyances in 1975 and 1976 of what is now
the Witners' property to Donald Gerhard and Mildred Selert,
respectively. These conveyances by Raymond and Verna Gerhard to
their children severed these two properties from the 40 acre
tract. To the extent the conveyances in 1975 and 1976 meet the
criteria for granting an easement by necessity, the Wi tners'
recourse is against the owner of the 40 acre tract from which
their property was severed, not against the owners of adjacent
land who were strangers to the severance.
[FN-28-15]
18
Easement by Express Grant
Plaintiffs at the time of filing their amended complaint
apparently were under the mistaken belief that the 1941 deed of
right-of-way from Hattie Gerhard to Homer Gerhard ( Plaintiffs
Exhibit No.26) was a grant of easement rights by Hattie to Homer
in what is now known as Meyers Drive. It is clear Plaintiffs
were wrong. The 1941 grant was for a south/north right-of-way
from Quakake Road along the western side of the 40 acre tract.
The easement Plaintiffs claim in Meyers Drive runs in a
west/east direction from Wetzel Run Drive and is across the
northern end of the 68 acre tract, not the western edge of the
40 acre tract. As significant, if not more, is that this grant
gives Defendants, as the owners of the 68 acre tract, the right
to cross the western edge of the 40 acre tract, not vice versa,
and therefore is of no benefit to Plaintiffs who seek to cross
Defendants' property.
Easement by Estoppel
This theory, apparently advanced by the Witners only,
appears to proceed on the basis that Defendants are estopped
from denying an easement in Meyers Drive because the Wi tners
relied on the existence of a right to use Meyers Drive when they
purchased their property and thereafter expended money
preparatory to building a home. The problem with this theory is
that neither the facts nor the law support it.
( FN-28-15]
19
"An easement by estoppel traditionally considered an
irrevocable license in Pennsylvania will arise when a
landowner permits a use of property under circumstances
suggesting that the permission will not be revoked, and the user
changes his or her position in reasonable reliance on that
permission." Kapp v. Norfork Southern Railway Co., 350
F.Supp.2d 597, 611-12 (M.D.Pa. 2004). See also Bieber v.
Zellner, 220 A.2d 17, 19 (Pa. 1966) ("A license to use the
promiser's land will become irrevocable for the duration of the
license term when the promisee in justifiable reliance treats
his land in a way he would not otherwise treat it, that is, by
making expenditures of money for such changes as would prevent
his being restored to his original position."}.
As to Defendants' actions, no evidence was presented of any
oral or written representations made by any of the Defendants to
Plaintiffs which authorized the use of Meyers Drive. At most,
as discussed with respect to Plaintiffs' claim for a
prescriptive easement, given the familial relationship between
the parties, the owners of the 40 acre tract were allowed to use
Meyers Drive as a courtesy. No evidence was presented, such as
the formal grant of easement from Hattie to Homer in 1941, that
this was ever intended to be anything more. The Witners have
pointed to no conduct attributable to the Defendants which
[FN-28-15)
20
suggests that this accommodation was or would become
irrevocable.
Nor was there any evidence of any conduct by the Defendants
which the Wi tners reasonably relied upon to their detriment so
as to est op the Defendants from revoking the permissive use.
The Witners purchased their property in 2010 and 2011. This was
after Defendants erected the gate in October 2009, as were all
the other expenditures the Witners claim to have made.
(Plaintiffs Exhibit Nos. 50 and 51). Many of these expenditures
were also incurred after Rachel Witner learned from her friend,
Tiffany Titus, Defendant Kyle Titus' daughter, in May 2011 that
Mr. Titus would not consent to the Witners using Meyers Drive to
access their property and to transport construction · materials
and equipment; after Plaintiffs filed suit on June 21, 2011; and
after Plaintiffs had been arrested by Defendants for trespassing
on Meyers Drive on July 4, 2011. These circumstances preclude a
finding of detrimental reliance.
CONCLUSION
"When a right or title is of ancient origin or where the
transaction under investigation is so remote as to be incapable
of direct proof. the law, of necessity, relaxes .the rules
of evidence and requires less evidence to substantiate the fact
[in] controversy." Tomlinson v. Jones, 557 A.2d 1103, 1104
[FN-28-15]
21
(Pa. Super. 198 9) ( citation and quotation marks omitted) . This
is of course true and has obvious bearing on this case where the
transactions and conduct in question are more than seventy-five
years old and, with respect to the severance of title, one
hundred and sixty-two years old. But this relaxation of the
rules does not mean we ignore the rules, or engage in
supposition or speculation.
When dealing with questions of ancient and adverse use, the
law wisely provides that " [ i] f all of the elements of adverse
[use] other than hostility are established, the element of
hostility is implied.n Watkins, 775 A.2d at 846. At the same
time, the law also wisely accounts for human nature, here, that
in the absence of contrary evidence, "[t]he use of the disputed
land is deemed permissive when a familial relationship exists."
Id. at 847.
As to proof that Meyers Drive existed when title to the
subject properties was severed in 1853, there was no direct
proof, and little indirect proof, and it defies common sense to
believe that Meyers Drive at that time was part of a public road
which extended several miles to the east and which was abandoned
before the 1885 Beers Atlas was printed, which, it is argued,
would explain why no reference to this road appears in the
Atlas. If this were the case, not only is the abandonment of
the road inexplicable, it makes no sense that none of the deeds
[FN-28-15]
22
for the 68 and 40 acre tracts, which Plaintiffs argue fronted on
this road, include the road in their metes and bounds
description or even make reference to the road. Yet, this is
what Plaintiffs ask us to believe.
Finally, in denying Plaintiffs' relief against Defendants,
we do not find that the Witners have no remedy, only that it is
not against Defendants on the evidence presented.
BY THE COURT:
P.J.
[ FN-28-15]
23
' I
w etzel Run Drive-~
Heyer.s Drive Pine Tree Lane Ext.
----l J
......
'
I
T
--- . -...,...- -
l -··
CJ ~
... ~ -
.L..., -:: Robert rr•ndon
J, Pugh Pugh
I.I
C> ::
>..:::
O I.I
t;
CJ
Rac~e1
Nit~e:::
``
...J
g£
0:::
I I
I.I
~ " I
Forn:-erly I
t
Uancy.
i Hinkle
I
l r I
I
I
I I I
I ,~
I v
''"'
...,
:.,
~I
-,·--
E
_,
I::;
Deborah Pugh 01
52.22 Ac
:
I I i
Qj Robert Selert
,' 32.3 Ac I
~. l
l
l I
11
Hattie to Home::: I
Right of Way
Quakake Road JI lt
----4-·I · ·-·- ---
-·· Appendix A
[FN-28-15)
24
John Gerhard and Mary Gerhard
Samuel 0. &
Hattie
Alice Millie
Selert
Deborah
Pugh
Robert, Jr. Rachel
Witner
Appendix B
[FN-28-15)
25
Circulated 01/13/2017 11:22 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL
JEREMY D. WITNER AND,
RACHEL A. WITNER, HIS WIFE,
ROBERT BRIAN SELERT AND, ,...,
MICHELLE A. SELERT, HIS WIFE,
Plaintiffs
-
= {;J"
·'T1
v. NO. 13-0597 1
i
--·~
•t_}(J
.........
...
c,:..:.:
-- .. l.:.;
:I: c.:,)
-ri
f'Tl
o:>
I
.... .
~, ....
- ~---
KYLE G. TITUS AND l cs z: 0) t
ALLYSON M. TITUS, HIS WIFE, '.J'. ,-;
<...l{~
--1,-- :i:-
rn
1 •
ROBERT G. PUGH AND ·;.,,:-
~:::. ::x 0
DEBORAH PUGH, HIS WIFE,
ROBERT JOSEPH PUGH,
\I -: -(_
'-?.
0
.&"
BRANDON PUGH AND
KAREN PUGH, HIS WIFE, \
Defendants
Cynthia S. Yurchak, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiffs
Kirn Roberti, Esquire Counsel for Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nanovic, P.J. - February 8, 2016
By order dated June 26, 2015, following a non-jury trial,
we denied Plaintiffs' request for the imposition and recognition
of an easement by prescription, by implication, by necessity, by
estoppel, and by express grant across Defendants' properties.
By agreement of the parties and in accordance with our order
dated July 13, 2015, we allowed Plaintiffs until Monday, August
10, 2015, to file post-trial motions to the June 26, 2015 order.
Post-Trial Motions were filed by Plaintiffs on August 7,
2015. Both parties have filed briefs addressing the issues
raised in these Post-Trial Motions. In this Memorandum Opinion
[FN-6-16]
1
we briefly explain our reasons for denying Plaintiffs' Post-
Trial Motions.
The factual and procedural background of this case,
together with the reasoning for our denial of Plaintiffs' claim
of an easement across Defendants' properties, was fully
explained in our Memorandum Opinion of June 2 6, 2015
("Memorandum Opinionn). Against the background of that Opinion,
we address the two issues raised in Plaintiffs' Motion for Post-
Trial Relief.
Prescriptive Easement
Plaintiffs first claim that our denial of their claim for
an easement by prescription across Defendants' properties was in
error because we looked at the wrong twenty-one year period in
determining whether Plaintiffs had established a prescriptive
easement.
Plaintiffs claim that they obtained an easement by
prescription in the area where Meyers Orive is now located to
cross Defendants' properties as a means of access to Wetzel Run
Drive, a public road.1 In our Memorandum Opinion of June 26,
2015, we explained that Defendants' properties were at one time
Meyers Drive, as it presently exists, is a private road with a 20 foot
right-of-way cutting across the northern edge of Defendants' properties and
providing Defendants with access to their properties from Wetzel Run Road.
The condition and width of Meyers Drive is vastly improved from the narrow
dirt farmers' lane existing prior to 1940 on which Plaintiffs base their
claim for a prescriptive easement. Nevertheless, for ease of reference, we
frequently refer in this opinion to the disputed area as being Meyers Drive.
[FN-6-16]
2
part of a 68 acre tract of land owned by John Homer Gerhard
("Homer") and that Plaintiffs' properties were all part of a 40
acre tract of land owned and farmed by Hattie Gerhard
(''Hattie") . This 40 acre parcel lies to the immediate east and
adjacent to the 68 acre parcel. What is now known as Meyers
Drive is a private road which intersects Wetzel Run Ori ve near
the northwest corner of the 68 acre tract and crosses the entire
width of this 68 acre tract along its northern boundary line
where it ends at the western boundary line of the 40 acre tract.
This is all depicted in Appendix "A" attached to our June 26,
2015 Memorandum Opinion.
An easement by prescription requires proof of adverse,
open, notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted use of another's
land for a period of twenty-one years. With respect to these
elements, Plaintiffs established that a dirt path or road in the
same area where Meyers Drive is now located existed in the late
1930s along the edge of a farmer's field. This path was part of
a network with other dirt roads which existed along the edges of
farming fields on the 68 and 4 0 acre parcels, as well as on
surrounding properties. These roads were used for moving farming
equipment between fields and also by the farmers and their
families for traveling between properties and as shortcuts for
gaining access to public roads. We also noted in our Memorandum
Opinion that some of these roads were plowed under yearly, while
[ FN-6-16)
3
others, such as Meyers Drive, were more permanent in nature "due
to the frequency with which they were used and their
destination." (Memorandum Opinion, p.4)
We accepted Plaintiffs' evidence that since the late 1930s
until the present time, the use of Meyers Drive has been
continuous, open, visible, and uninterrupted. (Memorandum
Opinion, p.5). We also found, however, that during the twenty-
one year period between March 1, 1940, and August 19, 1961, the
owners of the 68 and 40 acre tracts were related to one another
and that such relationship raised a presumption that the use of
Meyers Drive by the owner of the 40 acre tract was permissive.
(Memorandum Opinion, p.12).2 Plaintiffs argue that we erred in
in examining this period, that by 1940 adverse usage of Meyers
Drive by the owners of the 40 acre tract for a period of twenty-
one years had already been established, and that once
2
Plaintiffs correctly state in their Post-Trial Motions that we erred
factually on page 11 of the MemorandumOpinion in stating that the 68 acre
tract was acquired by Homer's grandparents, John and Mary Gerhard, on March
1, 1940, and that they later transferred this property to Horner on November
10, 1941. In reviewing the exhibits, the 68 acre tract was conveyed to John
Horner Gerhard and his wife, Mary R. Gerhard, by deed dated March 1, 1940 from
Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc., not to Homer's grandparents, John Gerhard and
Mary Gerhard. (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 20). A second deed dated November 10,
1941, from John Horner Gerhard and his wife, as grantors, conveys this
property, with other lands, to John Homer Gerhard, as grantee, in Deed Book
Volume 133, page 129. (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 5).
While acknowledging this error, it is immaterial to the purpose for which
it was cited, that the familial relationships between the owners of the 68
and 40 acre tracts was indicative of a permissive, rather than an adverse,
use. Whether Horner' s grandparents owned the 68 acre tract for the period
between March 1, 1940 and November 10, 1941, or whether, more accurately,
Homer first acquired ownership of the 68 acre tract at an earlier time, March
1, 1940, rather than November 10, 1941, either way, both the 68 acre tract
and the 40 acre tract were owned by relatives of one another during the same
time period referred to in the MemorandumOpinion.
[FN-6-16]
4
established, a subsequent familial relationship between the
owners of the properties involved would not extinguish the
easement. We agree with Plaintiffs' logic, but disagree that
the evidence supports the existence of a prescriptive easement
before 1940.
Eugene Gerhard, Hattie Gerhard's son, testified that his
earliest recollection of the dirt road was when he was eight or
nine years old, and also that the road has been open and visible
since he was nine years old. (N.T., 8/28/14, pp. 13, 40). Since
Eugene Gerhard was born on June 19, 1928, this dates his
recollection of the road to either 1936 or 1937. At best,
Eugene Gerhard's testimony points to the existence of the road
approximately four years before both tracts were owned by the
same family members.
Eugene Gerhard's testimony did not establish how long the
road was in existence or when the use of this road by the owners
of the 40 acre tract began or under what circumstances: was it
adverse or permissive. Nor did Eugene Gerhard's testimony
establish that the use of the road by the owners of the 40 acre
tract was continuous, open, visible, and uninterrupted for a
period of at least twenty-one years before 1940. To claim, as
Plaintiffs do, that the road existed and was being used by
Hattie's husband, Samuel Gerhard, as early as 1913, the year in
which he acquired ownership of the 4 0 acre tract, is at best
[FN-6-16]
5
optimistic speculation on Plaintiffs' part. It is not supported
by the evidence, especially when the nature and circumstances of
this dirt road and the other dirt roads with which it was
connected is taken into account: the roads were located along
the edges of farmers' fields primarily to allow the farmers to
move their equipment from one field to another; the location of
these roads often changed as the fields were farmed each year,
at times being totally farmed under; and the roads were easily
created and just as easily torn up.
Not only would it be inappropriate to presume that the use
of Meyers Drive before 1940 was adverse and hostile, what
evidence was presented on this issue is contrary to such a
finding. Specifically, Eugene Gerhard testified that it was
common at the time of his youth for adjoining property owners
and others in the neighborhood to work with one another and to
cross one another's property in getting from one location to
another (N.T. 8/28/14, pp.18, 38, 78), and that Homer often
crossed Hattie's property in going from one field to another,
and Eugene's family often crossed Homer's property in going from
one field to another. (N.T. 8/28/14, pp.85-86). Eugene Gerhard
further testified that before Homer acquired the 68 acre tract
in 1940 on which Meyers Drive is located, the property was owned
by the Coxe Brothers, that his family rented this property from
Coxe Brothers and farmed it, and that their use of the property
[ FN-6-16]
6
was permissive. (N.T., 8/28/14, pp.34, 41-42, 65, 68) .
Accordingly, when all of the record evidence is taken into
account, not just that reproduced by Plaintiffs for their Post-
Trial Motions, we believe the weight of the evidence supports
and j usti fies our conclusion that a prescriptive easement was
not established.
Easement by Implication
Plaintiffs also contend that we erred by not finding that
an easement by implication exists over Meyers Drive. Plaintiffs
refer to the testimony of both Eugene Gerhard and Robert Selert
regarding their observations of what they believe are the
remnants of an abandoned road running east from the present
course of Meyers Drive towards State Route 93. (N.T., 8/28/14,
pp.21-24, 79-81, 91-93, 126-27, 129-33). Eugene Gerhard also
testified that Homer told him that Meyers Drive at one time
extended as far east as Route 93. ( N. T. , 8 I 2 8 / 14, pp. 31-3 2) .
Plaintiffs also submitted into evidence deeds concerning their
properties and a map of their properties and the surrounding
area from the 1885 Beers Atlas. Plaintiffs further argue that
Defendants presented no evidence to rebut their contention that
an easement by implication exists upon Meyers Drive.
Plaintiffs bore the burden of proving an easement by
implication at trial. In our Memorandum Opinion we determined
Plaintiffs did not meet this burden. We found that Plaintiffs
[FN-6-16]
7
had not proven the second element of an easement by implication:
that, before the separation of title of properties held in
common ownership, the use which gives rise to the easement,
shall have been so long continued, and be so obvious or
manifest, as to show that it was meant to be permanent. See
Bucciarelli v. Delisa, 691 A.2d 446, 449 (Pa. 1997). As stated
on page 16 of our Memorandum Opinion:
[The Plaintiffs'] evidence does not prove that at
the time title [to the 68 and 40 acre tracts] was
severed [in 1853], the critical point of our
analysis, there existed an open, visible,
continuous and permanent use of Meyers Drive, or
that such use was necessary to the beneficial
enjoyment of the 40 acre tract. To the contrary,
no evidence or testimony was presented as to how
the 68 and 40 acre tracts were used in relation
to one another - or even what use was made of
these properties - by Dennis Bauman before the
1853 conveyance to John Steiner. Moreover,
Plaintiffs' contention that Meyers Drive
proceeded in an easterly direction to intersect
with what is now State Route 93 is not supported
by the credible evidence. See Plaintiffs Exhibit
No.38 (1885 Beers Atlas) which, while depicting
Wetzel Run Drive, contains no reference to Meyers
Drive or any other public road at this location
extending to State Route 93.
Additionally, as we concluded on pages 22 and 23 of the
Memorandum Opinion:
As to proof that Meyers Drive existed when title
to the subject properties was severed in 1853,
there was no direct proof, and little indirect
proof, and it defies common sense to believe that
Meyers Drive at that time was part of a public
road which extended several miles to the east and
which was abandoned before the 1885 Beers Atlas
was printed, which, it is argued, would explain
[ FN-6-16]
8
why no reference to this road appears in the
Atlas. If this were the case, not only is the
abandonment of the road inexplicable, it makes no
sense that none of the deeds for the 68 and 40
acre tracts, which Plaintiffs argue fronted on
this road, include the road in their metes and
bounds description or even make reference to the
road.
After reviewing Plaintiffs argument on this issue, we see no
reason to change our decision.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Plaintiffs' Motion for
Post-Trial Relief has been denied.
BY THE COURT:
P.J.
[FN-6-16]
9