DePiano, M. v. Governanti, D.

J-A28012-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MARGARET DEPIANO IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
DAVID & CAROLYN GOVERNANTI
No. 966 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 21, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 2013-10529-RC
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and PLATT*, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2017
Appellant, Margaret DePiano, appeals from the judgment entered after
a non-jury verdict in favor of Appellees, David and Carolyn Governanti, and
against Appellant. Appellant challenges the trial court’s factual and legal
conclusions supporting a verdict in favor of Appellees. Specifically, Appellant
contends that the trial court erred in finding that she did not present
sufficient, credible, evidence of a consentable boundary line between her
property and Appellees’ property. We affirm.
The trial court accurately summarized the history of this case. See
Trial Court Opinion, 5/6/16 at 1-5. Therefore, a detailed recitation of the
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A28012-16
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 or 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
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, Appellant has raised two issues. First, Appellant contends
that the trial court erred by failing to credit construction plans as reliable
evidence of the grantor’s intent for the location of boundary lines. See
Appellant’s Brief, at 5. Second, Appellant claims that the trial court erred by
failing to find that aerial photographs, in conjunction with the construction
plans, provided sufficient proof of her claimed consentable boundary line.
See id.
The trial court, in its May 6, 2016 opinion, has aptly reviewed
Appellant’s claims and disposed of the arguments on the merits. We have
-2-
J-A28012-16
reviewed the parties’ briefs, the relevant law, the certified record, and the
well-written opinion of the Honorable Edward Griffith. We have determined
that the trial court’s opinion comprehensively disposes of Appellant’s issues
on appeal, with appropriate references to the record and without legal error.
Therefore, we will affirm based on this decision. See Trial Court Opinion,
filed 5/6/16.
Judgment affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/28/2017
-3-