HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-05481
"
f
A
t. _
VVh
R4detLS?
Aa
?L? nl
i„
?i
k ?
?
A
Yr?
"(
y?
"v
i?
t
;
t
t
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff
v
T. S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99- 5481 EQUITY
IN EQUITY
Please issue a Writ of Summons against the Defendants, T. S. Jarl
Uilkema and Carolyn E. Uilkema of 89 East Ridge Street, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania 17013.
Date:
Christophe C. Houston, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
52 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-241-5970
ai
r -
$
L
A
' ?
F
C r ;iiu
O
cr t?
N
c
m
M
N
00
. t
.. k
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
Samuel W. Taylor
Court of Common Pleas
va.
Yo. _99_5481 i Term
T.S. Jarl Uilkema and ------------------ 49 ---
Carolyn E. Uilkena In Equity Term
69 East Ridge Street - ------- - -- -----------
Carlisle, PA 17013
To _ T•S:_J?L1_Uil(cetna and Camlyn_E_ Uilkena
You are hereby notified that
°------------------------------ Samuel W. Taylor
- - -------------------------------------------------
the Plaintiff has commenced an action in __ EgutY_ Term
against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you
(SEAL)
Curtis R. Long
---------------------------
Prothhonncootarryy
Date September-9th.......... 1922.- By ----- ,
----------------- -° ---
---p-- ?? ,L
Deputy
?_
Co
LC)
1
A
r
,
,
o"
? ? i i ?N•?-?
N q LO
r-I
a
' rn
al
3 W ? a; Ln
0
h ?+
.ti
U
1
N
3•
?
.1
1
.
F"' ?J N {p? N
g
i Din
C
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff
v
T. S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-5481 EQUITY TERM
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the
claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action
within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served,
by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and
filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the
claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to
do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be
entered against you by the Court without further notice for any
money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or
other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF
YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE
YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
Two Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
717 - 249-3166
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v NO. 99-5481 EQUITY TERM
T. S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
COMPLAINT FOR AEE.1FIC PERFORMANCE
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Samuel W. Taylor, by and through his
attorney, Christopher C. Houston, Esquire, who avers as follows:
1
The Plaintiff is Samuel W. Taylor, an adult individual, currently
residing at 11 South Timber Hollow Drive, #1122, Fairfield, OH
45014.
2
The Defendant T. S. Jarl Uilkema is an adult individual, currently
residing at 85 East Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
3
The Defendant Carolyn E. Uilkema is an adult individual, currently
residing at 85 East Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
4
The Plaintiff is the owner of the premises located at 89 East Ridge
Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter
"Taylor's Premises").
5
Defendants T. S. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E. Uilkema (hereinafter
collectively "Defendants") are the owners of the premises located
at 85 East Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
(hereinafter "Uilkema's Premises").
6
On July 16, 1998, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into an
Agreement concerning various matters affecting their respective
premises. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A is a copy of the
Agreement (hereinafter the "Agreement"), which is incorporated
herein by reference.
7
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Plaintiff has done the
following:
A. Paid for the services of Statler-Brehm Associates, Inc. (an
engineering firm) for purposes of preparing a plan to
establish the boundary line in accordance with the terms of
-aj
the Agreement and which are to be used for the basis for
creating legal descriptions for corrective deeds for the
Plaintiff and the Defendants so as to conform the legal
description of their respective premises to an agreed-upon
boundary line between the parties premises, all as more
particularly set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Agreement.
B. Cut and removed the limb of a walnut tree located to the rear
of Taylor's Premises, as more particularly set forth in
Paragraph 6 of the Agreement.
C. Presented an Easement and Maintenance Agreement in accordance
with Paragraph 7 of the Agreement, a copy of which is attached
hereto and marked as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by
reference (hereinafter the "Easement and Maintenance
Agreement"). The Easement and Maintenance Agreement does not
include the item as set forth in Paragraph 7(B), in that it is
Plaintiff's understanding that Defendants no longer wish to
incorporate into the terms of an agreement the installation
and maintenance of a boundary fence. Nor does the Easement
and Maintenance Agreement provide for the maintenance of a
linden tree, as more particularly set forth in Paragraph 7(C)
of the Agreement, in that it is Plaintiff's understanding that
the Defendants are no longer concerned with inclusion in any
Easement and Maintenance Agreement of the terms for the shared
maintenance of the linden tree.
D. Prepared a corrective deed for Taylor's Premises, which
conforms to the plan prepared to establish the agreed-upon
boundary line. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit C is
Plaintiff's deed which has been prepared and is ready for
recording.
8
Paragraph 9 of the Agreement provides that the parties shall agree
to cooperate in execution of "such documents as may be necessary to
effectuate the terms of the Agreement,..."
9
Despite Plaintiff's repeated requests to finalize matters pursuant
to the Agreement, the Defendants have failed to do the following:
A. Failed to cooperate in execution of an Easement and
Maintenance Agreement.
B. Failed to cooperate in the preparation of a corrective deed so
as to conform the legal description of the Defendants'
Premises to the agreed upon boundary line.
10
The Easement and Maintenance Agreement sets forth the easements as
agreed upon by the parties, as referenced in the Agreement.
11
Plaintiff desires to proceed and have matters finalized pursuant to
the terms of the Agreement.
12
Plaintiff has desired to sell his premises but is not in a position
to do so until the matters as set forth in the Agreement are
finalized.
13
Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to order and
direct the Defendants to do the following:
A. Execute the Easement and Maintenance Agreement in the form
attached to this Complaint;
B. Prepare a corrective deed pursuant to the plan as prepared by
Statler-Brehm Associates, Inc., which is attached as Exhibit
A to the Easement and Maintenance Agreement, and to proceed
and file said corrective deed in the Recorder of Deeds Office
in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, along with the
corrective deed of Plaintiff;
C. To cooperate with Plaintiff for the restoration of Taylor's
Premises, as more particularly set forth in Paragraph 5 of the
Agreement; and
D. Cooperate in the execution of such other documents as may be
necessary to effectuate the terms of the Agreement.
Respeqt?f}illy submitted,
Christopher C. Houston, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
52 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-241-5970
I verify that the statements in the foregoing pleading are true and
correct. I understand that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 PaCS 4904 relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
AZ2?alZV
Samuel W. Taylor
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT by and between Samuel W. Taylor, of 89 East
Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
(hereinafter "Taylor"), and T. S. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E.
Uilkema, of 85 East Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania (hereinafter "Uilkemas").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Taylor is the owner of the premises located at 89 East
Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
(hereinafter "Taylor's Premises");
WHEREAS, Uilkemas are the owners of the premises located at 85 East
Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
(hereinafter "Uilkema's Premises"); and
WHEREAS, Uilkemas and Taylor desire to enter into an agreement
concerning various matters affecting their respective premises.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and
covenants, as set forth herein, the parties intending to be legally
bound, do hereby agree as follows:
1. ESTABLISHMENT OF HOIINDARY LINE - The parties do hereby agree
to establish and determine the location of the boundary line
between Uilkema's Premises and Taylor's Premises. The
boundary line shall be that line which shall be two (2) feet
westward of and parallel to the boundary line as set forth on
a Plan of Boundary Survey for Samuel W. Taylor, dated April
23, 1998, and prepared by Statler-Brehm Associates,
Inc. (hereinafter "Statler-Brehm"). Taylor shall pay for the
services of Statler-Brehm for purposes of modifying the Plan
of Boundary Survey to establish said boundary line in
accordance with the agreement as set forth herein and such
other costs pertaining to the work to be performed by Statler-
Brehm for creating legal descriptions for corrective deeds for
Taylor and Uilkemas, so as to conform the legal description of
their respective premises to the agreed-upon boundary line, as
set forth herein, and any other of the costs associated with
services performed by Statler-Brehm for legally establishing
the new boundary line.
EXHIBIT
2. EASEEKNTS FOR RRAGE - Uilkemas shall grant an easement to
Taylor for any overhang upon Uilkemas' premises for the
existing garage located on Taylor' Premises and Uilkemas shall
further provide Taylor with a perpetual access easement for
maintenance purposes for the western side of the existing
garage.
3. BOMMARY FENCE - Uilkemas may install, at their sole cost and
expense, a boundary fence on the agreed-upon boundary line
which will match in appearance the fence erected along the
western boundary line of Uilkema's Premises, with any future
maintenance responsibilities for the boundary line fence to be
Uilkemas' sole cost and expense.
4. MAINTENANCE OF LINDEN TREE - The parties agree to share
equally in the cost of maintaining, which would include but
not be limited to pruning, a Linden tree located on or about
the boundary line at East Ridge Street.
5. RESTORATION OF TAYLOR'S PREMISES - The parties shall provide
the necessary labor to jointly restore Taylor's Premises to
its original grade and elevation, as it existed prior to June
1998, up to the newly-agreed upon boundary line, with Taylor
to incur, however, no out-of-pocket costs.
6. NALZZ TREE - Taylor is to cut and remove the limb of the
walnut tree located to the rear of Taylor's Premises, as
identified and agreed to by the parties.
7. EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - The parties shall
execute an Easement and Maintenance Agreement in recordable
form, which shall provide for the following:
A. The easements granted to Taylor, as set forth in
Paragraph 2 herein.
B. The installation and maintenance of the boundary
fence in accordance with the terms as set forth in
Paragraph 3 herein, which shall also include an
access easement to be granted by Taylor to Uilkemas
for maintenance of the boundary line fence.
C. The shared maintenance for the Linden tree, as more
particularly set forth in Paragraph 4.
8. ENTIRE AGREffimM - This Agreement contains the entire
understanding of the parties and there are no representations,
warranties, covenants or undertakings other than those
expressly set forth herein. .
9. ADDITIONAL DOCUEO:RTS - The parties agree to cooperate in the
execution of such documents as may be necessary to effectuate
the terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited to,
any documentation to be provided to the Borough of Carlisle,
if any, for approvals, and execution of the Easement and
Maintenance Agreement, as provided for herein.
10. INTERPRETATION - This Agreement shall be construed under the
laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
il. BINDING NATURE - This Agreement shall be binding and shall
inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their
respective, heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEaPOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and
seals this _ day of J (??y 1998.
WITN7
Samuel W. Taylor `
?hzlka T. S. arl Uilkema
Carolyn E.'Uilkema
Taylor Easomenw.15.99
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT made this _ day of 1999, by and between T.
S. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E. Uilkema, of 85 East Ridge Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
(hereinafter referred to as "Grantors") and Samuel W. Taylor, of 89 East Ridge Street, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantors own the premises at 85 East Ridge Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
(hereinafter "Grantors' Premises"), and Grantee owns the premises at 89 East Ridge Street,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania (hereinafter 'Grantee's Premises');
WHEREAS, a dispute has arisen between the parties with respect to the boundary line
between Grantors' Premises and Grantee's Premises and the encroachment of the portion of
the garage of Grantee upon Grantors' Premises;
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to resolve the boundary dispute by establishing the
location of the dividing line between Grantors' Premises and Grantee's Premises, as more
particularly set forth on Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference;
WHEREAS, upon establishment of the boundary line between Grantors' Premises and
Grantee's Premises, there exists an encroachment of the overhang of Grantee's garage in the
air space over Grantors' Premises, at a height of approximately 11 feet, as more particularly
set forth on Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to resolve the boundary line dispute and to enter into an
agreement:
Agreeing upon the location of the dividing line between Grantors' Premises and
Grantee's Premises;
2. Granting rights of encroachment by Grantee upon Grantors' Premises; and
3. Granting rights of access across Grantors' Premises to Grantee for the purpose of
maintaining the encroaching part of the garage and also for maintaining the westerly
side of Grantee's garage which closely adjoins the agreed-upon property line.
NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange of mutual considerations and intending to be bound by the
provisions hereof, the parties agree as follows:
The Establishment of Boundary Line - Grantors and Grantee agree that Exhibit "A"
accurately sets forth the location of the dividing line between Grantors' Premises and
r EXHIBIT
1
Grantee's Premises.
2. Grant of Easement - Grantors grant and convey to Grantee the following:
A. An easement over and above the land of Grantors' Premises, as more
particularly set forth on Exhibit "B", for the overhang of Grantee's garage,
which is currently erected upon Grantee's Premises. Said easement shall be
limited to the air space measuring approximately 11 feet vertically from ground
level.
B. A maintenance easement in, over, and above Grantors' Premises for the purpose
of performing maintenance work on the encroachment referred to in Paragraph
21A) above and for the purpose of performing maintenance on the westerly
portion of the garage closely adjoining the property line between the parties.
3. Use of Easement - The use of said easement upon Grantors' Premises shall be
exercised by prior notification by Grantee to Grantors within a reasonable period of
time, in person or in writing, which shall set forth the nature and scope of the work and
the proposed commencement and completion dates of the work. The parties shall
mutually agree upon a revision to the scheduled work dates to be performed by Grantee
in the event that Grantors have a conflict with respect to the use of the easement area.
No ladders, tools, materials, or debris shall be left on Grantors' Premises when the
work is completed or when it is interrupted for periods exceeding 48 hours, unless and
in each such instance of interruption of work specific consent is obtained from Grantors
for items of work or materials to remain upon Grantors' Premises.
4. Limitations on Grantee's Rights
A. Rights granted to any party hereunder are based upon the configuration existing
at the time of this Agreement. No authorization is granted by this Easement to
modify the geometric configuration established by this Easement except for the
purpose of eliminating the encroaching portion of the garage, whereupon the
easement for encroachment is extinguished and cannot be reestablished without
Grantors' specific written approval. In the event the Easement for
Encroachment is terminated, the Easement for Maintenance may, nonetheless,
be continued for the purposes as set forth in Paragraph 21B) above.
B. Grantee shall not cause any collected runoff (including roof gutter drainage),
collected precipitation emanating from the encroaching portion of the garage,
or any eff luent from any surface drainage or from other portions of the garage
to be directed toward or to be deposited on Grantors' Premises.
C. Other than the right of access for maintenance work and the continuance of an
existing encroachment, Grantee has no other rights with respect to Grantors'
O 9
WITNESS GRANTEE
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
as
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
On this, the day of 1999, before me, the undersigned
officer, personally appeared T. S. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E. Uilkema, known to
me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to
the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same for the
purpose therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and notarial seal.
Notary Public
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
: as
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ,
On this, the _ day of 1999, before me, the undersigned
officer, personally appeared Samuel W. Taylor, known to me (or satisfactorily
proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and
acknowledged that he executed the same for the purpose therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and notarial seal.
Notary Public
ALLEY S 83'50'00' E
50'00' E 110.70'
I ? I
swan •
sa msa ww,
A
AREA. ,124 82 SgFt o'
19,374.87 SgFt
WW .'
v. wwa.,a 4
M
•.
J ? J
O ?.
aM, I• Z 81
East Ridge
NOTE. The purpose of this survey and plan is to establish and
depict, by actual field measurement and survey, the
correct location of the dividing line between the lands of
Taylor and Uilkema. The corrective survey is based on
existing monumentation and long standing lines of
occupation established by the current owners of these
properties as well as their predecessors.
T
c?
1s'1
co
o
c
1"1
0
4-4
ro
W
i
?oNW ESE rti CORRECTIVE
REGISIERFO BOUNDARY SURVEY
OF
PROFESSIONAL
/A a
DOUGLAS S. OREHM TAYLOR/'UILKEMA PROPERTIES
sUR EroR ` CARLISLE BOROUGH CUMBERLAND COUNTY , PA
W2479.1 DAM 0e/12/102e 80" 1' . 30' JOB R 9{-0.-072
H N s r 6 r STATLER-BREHM ASSOCIATES INC.
60 ENGINEERING 2* PLANNING * SURVEYING 31 MOM SE0010 MW
EXHIBIT 01 ® 04 fH „ 01PA 172M
1 7) 267-
a!
ALLEY
EDGE OF MACADAM
Ew3nNG LIGHT POLE
EXISTING PARKING AREA
OUTSIDE FACE OF RAIN
EXISTING CONCRETE CURB
r-------
I f IRON PIN SET 1
EXISTING WOODEN FENCE
Lands of
T. S. Jarl UBksma
Carolyn E. Ulikema
26-Z / 042
85 East Ridge Street
PERPETUAL \
ACCESS & MAINTENANCE
EASEMENT AREA
AT EXISTING GARAGE
TAYLOR/UILKEMA PROPERTIES
CAMM ll BOROUGH CUMBUI.AM COUNTY. PA
DAM OB/12/1800 SCAUD V . W JOB R "-M-on
1
ea
a
G
C c
z
m
0
a
e d
e
EXHIBIT
76
EXISTING
GARAGE
\ BUILDING WALL
OUTSIDE FACE OF RAIN CUTTER
EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK
Lands of
Samuel W. Taylor
32-R / 192
89 East Ridge Street
V PROFES3IONAL w
DOUGLAS S. BREHM
BREHM ASSOCIATES, INC.
G O PLANNING ? SURVEYING
102 /w J1 N011111 BEOOIB) sIREIT
(\(?-J\/\ Re 1401I 77201
Taylor Dead-ok
Tax Parcel No.
CORRECTIVE DEED
Made the day of , in the year Nineteen
hundred and ninety-eight (1998).
Between SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, of Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania,
Grantor
and
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, of Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania,
Grantee
Witnesseth, that in consideration of ONE and 00/100 DOLLARS ($1.00),
in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the said
Grantor does hereby grant and convey to the said Grantee, his heirs
and assigns,
ALL the following described real estate situate in the Borough of
Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, being bounded and
described as follows:
BEGINNING at an iron pin now set on the Northern right of way line
of East Ridge Street, said pin being also situate at the Southeast
corner of the land now or formerly of T. S. Jarl Uilkema and
Carolyn E. Uilkema, thence leaving said place of Beginning and said
Northern right of way line and running with and binding on the
Eastern boundary line of said Uilkema land north 5 degrees 42
minutes 30 seconds East 175 feet to an iron pin set on the Southern
right of way line of an unnamed alley; thence running with and
binding on said Southern right of way line South 83 degrees 50
minutes 00 seconds East 35 feet to a point on the Western right of
way line of South Bedford Street; thence running with and binding
on said Western right of way line South 5 degrees 42 minutes 30
seconds West 175 feet to a point at the corner formed by the
intersection of the Western right of way line of South Bedford
Street and the Northern right of way line of East Ridge Street;
EXHIBIT
thence running with and binding on said Northern right of way line
of East Ridge Street North 83 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds West 35
feet to the place of BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 6,124.82 square feet of land, more or less.
BEING further described in a Corrective Boundary Survey of
Taylor/Uilkema Properties dated August 12, 1998.
THE PURPOSE of this Corrective Deed is to establish the correct
location of the dividing line between the lands of Taylor and
Uilkema.
BEING the same premises which Richard C. Ward and Lisa P. Ward,
his wife, by Deed dated May 20, 1987, and recorded in the office of
the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
in Deed Book R, Volume 32, Page 192, granted and conveyed unto
Samuel W. Taylor, Grantor herein.
THIS is a corrective deed and is, therefore, exempt from
Pennsylvania realty transfer tax.
AndtheSaid Grantor hereby covenants and agrees that he will warrant
specially the property hereby conveyed.
In Witness Whereof, said Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal
the day and year first above written.
WITNESS
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania s
s ss
County of Cumberland :
On this, the _ day of , 1998, before me, the undersigned
officer, personally appeared Samuel W. Taylor, known to me (or satisfactorily
proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and
acknowledged that he executed the same for the purpose therein contained.
In Witness Whereof, i have hereunto set my hand and notarial seal.
Notary Public
Iherehycerdfy that the precise residence and complete post office address of the
Grantees herein is
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of
Attorney for Grantees
: ss
Recorded in the office for Recording of Deeds in and for County in
Deed Hook _, Volume _, Page
Witness my hand and seal of Office this _ day of , 199
Recorder
>' ?' %-
_ ?..
i-
u ; `.'. --
?,..
r
? `' t.?
.
c.?? _ i
_?,
?-
:; ..
c._ -
i '
u? (j
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR )
Plaintiff, )
VS. )
T. S. JARL UILKEMA AND )
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA )
Defendants. )
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CASE NO: No. 99-5481 EQUITY TERM
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Defendants T.S. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E. Uilkema through their Attorney Broujos & Gilroy,
P.C. set forth the following:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. A. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Denied that Plaintiff paid
for the services of Statler-Brehm Associates, Inc. (an engineering firm) for the purposes of
preparing a plan to establish the boundary line in accordance with the terms of the Agreement
and which are to be used for the basis for creating legal description of their respective premises
to an agreed-upon boundary line between parties premises, all as more particularly set forth in
Paragraph 1 of the Agreement. Proof is demanded.
B. Admitted.
C. Admitted that an Agreement was presented. Admitted that the Agreement does
not include the items set forth in Paragraph 7B. Denied that the Defendants no longer wish to
incorporate the installation and maintenance of a boundary fence. On the contrary, Defendants
wish to incorporate the installation and maintenance of a boundary fence. Denied that the
Agreement would not provide for the maintenance of the linden tree. The Defendants are not
concerned with inclusion in the Agreement of terns of the shared maintenance of the linden tree.
D. Admitted that a corrective deed was prepared. Denied that the deed conforms to
the plan prepared to establish a boundary line. Denied that there was an agreed upon boundary
line, since the boundary line had to be set forth on a plan and both corrective deeds prepared and
recorded.
8. Admitted.
9. A. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment
B. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Plaintiff failed to
cooperate in the preparation of a corrective deed so as to conform the legal description of the
Defendants' premises to the agreed upon boundary line.
10. Denied. On the contrary, there are areas of disagreement. After reasonable investigation
Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
averment
11. Plaintiff states a conclusion and does not require a response.
12. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment
13. Denied. The Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law by an action in trespass or an action
to Quiet Title.
NEW MATTER
14. Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law by an action of trespass or an action to Quiet
Title.
15. Plaintiff violated the Agreement. Prior to establishment of the boundary line, and
without consultation with or approval by the Defendants, Plaintiff excavated a trench and buried
utilities for telephone and power lines on the property of Defendants. Plaintiff failed to explain or
justify his actions, refusing to answer inquiries. The Agreement was in fact executory.
Plaintiff violated the Agreement, rendering the Agreement null and void.
WHEREFORE the Defendants pray the Honorable Court to dismiss
'l?ro0jos & Gilroy, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-4574
FAX: 717-243-8227
November 22, 1999
I verify that the statements made in this pleading are true and correct. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to
tmswom falsification to authorities. c-
N
Z
?iL aC,>
Ci ch
}: N
C3 M4.
<D can,
George F. Douglas, III, Esquire
SUPREME COURT I.D.It61886
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
27 W. HIGH ST.
POE 261
CARLISLE PA 17013
TELEPHONE 717-243-1790
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION - Law
Vs.
i T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
99-5481 EQUITY TERM
Jury Trial Demanded
RULE
AND NOW, to wit, this the ? day of l UKLt 1569 a
Rule is hereby issued upon the defendants to show cause why the plaintiff should
not be permitted to amend his complaint.
'' Rule returnable-L-- days from the date of service.-TW \'W*l?w?
W'dk By / "Court,
(CAM t'
A'mla-as 9Q
.Co?ceal ?Y+?.a.c:Y.c,d J
Al? 5
George F. Douglas, 111, Esquire
SUPREME COURT I.D.#61886
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
27 W. HIGH ST.
POB 261
CARLISLE PA 17013
TELEPHONE 717-243-1790
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
( ........................................................................... ............................................................................................-......
...
..
..
... W. TAYL.....
.. OR, P.. lainti....... ff I CIVIL ACTION - Law
I SAMUEL..
Vs.
99-5481 EQUITY TERM
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants ; Jury Tril Daded
....... _ .................................... ........................................... _............... ....................... ... .. .............a................em.........n...........-...
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT.
Your Petitioner, Samuel W. Taylor, by and through his attorneys,
Douglas, Douglas & Douglas, respectfully represents:
1. He is the plaintiff in the above-captioned action.
2. Due to New Matter being filed by the defendants wherein they claim
a prior agreement is null and void, it becomes necessary for the plaintiff to
amend his complaint to plead a claim for adverse possession.
3. The claim for adverse possession is within the Statute of Limitations,
and is timely.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that a Rule be issued upon the defendant to
show cause why the plaintiff should not be permitted to amend his complaint.
Douglas,?Dougglas & Douglas
By.gl
George F. Douglas, III, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Affidavit
This verification is made pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1024(c) by counsel for the plaintiff.
To the best of the signer's knowledge, information and belief, the foregoing is
true and correct.
Dated: December 28,1999
_ F
Uhn George F. Douglas, I
Attorney for Plaintiff
F-
c,
-:
n.
T
- ?ro
L
LL 4.
I
.. 1
YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED TO FILE A
WRITTEN RESPONSC TO THE ENCLOSED
WITHIN TWENTY 4201 DAYS FROM SC RYICE
HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE
ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
BY ---
ATTORNEY
DOUGLAS. DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
WE DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW WITHIN IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY
Ev w. 1110» OTn E[T OF THE ORIGINAL FILED IN THIS
P 0. Do. E9 ACTION.
CARLISLE
PENNSYLVANIA
PE
N BY
.
II,
N
ATTQ
a 2
?
Y
George F. Douglas, III, Esquire
SUPREME COURT I.D.#61886
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
27 W. HIGH ST.
POB 261
CARLISLE PA 17013
TELEPHONE 717-243-1790
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, Plaintiff
Vs.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - Law
99.5481 EQUITY TERM
Trial Demanded
AND NOW to wit, this IT f-- day of January, 2000, in consideration of
the attached Petition, the Rule is made absolute, and the Plaintiff is directed to
file his amended complaint.
By the Court,
1-13-00
q3
OF
n ;Q7I?R
CO,IQ? Y
JIS A1110:p0
PEA'A'SYLV/WAU?1TY
George F. Douglas, III, Esquire
SUPREME COURT I.D. #61886
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
27 W. HIGH ST.
POB 261
CARLISLE PA 17013
TELEPHONE 717-243-1790
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, Plaintiff
Vs.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - Law
99-5481 EQUITY TERM
Jury Trial Demanded
The rule to show cause why the petition should not be granted was signed
by The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley on December 28, 1999. The Prothonotary sent
the Rule to Show Cause to John H. Broujos, Esquire, Counsel for the Defendants,
T.S. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E. Uilkema, by first class mail. In addition, George
F. Douglas, III, Esquire, sent a copy of the Rule and Petition to Attorney Broujos
on December 30, 1999, by first class mail. A copy of the letter, and the Petition
with Rule to Show Cause are attached hereto.
No answer was filed by the Defendants.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the Court make the rule absolute.
By the Court,
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
WILLIAM P. DOUGLAS -1
GEORGE F. DOUGLAS, M
-ALSO ADMITTED TO
PRACTICE IN FLORIDA
. CMTIFICD AS A CIVIL TRIAL ADVOCATE BY
TMC NATIONAL BOARD Of TRIAL ADVOCAY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
27 W. HIGH STRICT
P O. BOE 201
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA
17013.0201
December 30,1999
John H. Broujos, Esquire
Broujos & Gilroy, P.C.
4 N. Hanover St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: Taylor vs. Uilkema
Dear John:
GEORGE F. DOUGLAS, JR.
1925.1995
(717) 243.1790
FAX(717)243-0955
Enclosed is a copy of the Rule and Petition for Rule to Amend the
Complaint.
Sincerely,
GFD,M:a
Enclosure
George P. Douglas, III, Esquire
SUPREME COURT I.D.#61886
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
27 W. HIGH ST.
POB 261
CARLISLE PA 17013
TELEPHONE 717-243-1790
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION - Law
Vs.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
99-5481 EQUITY TERM
Jury Trial Demanded
AND NOW, to wit, this the -j day of APOW2 fpy
a
Rule is hereby issued upon the defendants to show cause why the plaintiff should
not be permitted to amend his complaint.
Rule returnble days from the date o 'c ?o l??tam
/ B the Co
Y
TRUE COPY FROM RE03RD
In T"Umony wtwaot. I re unto W my hana
and Sn$ of Cart6sp. Rt
Rothon
George F. Douglas, III, Esquire
SUPREME COURT I.D.I61886
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
27 W. HIGH ST.
POE 261
CARLISLE PA 17013
TELEPHONE 717-243-1790
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - Law
Vs.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and 99-5481 EQUITY TERM
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants ___- Jury Trial Demanded
PETITION FOR RULE TO AM ND OMp sr*T'r
TO THE HONORABLE, TEE JUDGES OF SAID COURT.
Your Petitioner, Samuel W. Taylor, by and through his attorneys,
Douglas, Douglas & Douglas, respectfully represents:
1. He is the plaintiff in the above-captioned action.
2. Due to New Matter being filed by the defendants wherein they claim
a prior agreement is null and void, it becomes necessary for the plaintiff to
amend his complaint to plead a claim for adverse possession.
3. The claim for adverse possession is within the Statute of limitations,
and is timely.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that a Rule be issued upon the defendant to
show cause why the plaintiff should not be permitted to amend his complaint.
Douglas, Douglas & Douglas
By r;.
George P. ouglas, III, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Affidavit
This verification is made pursuant to Pa.RC.P 1024(c) by counsel for the plaintiff.
To the best of the signer's knowledge, information and belief, the foregoing is
true and correct.
Dated: December 28,1999
arl dl-- .0 TJQ1?lAJlQ?-
George F. Douglas,
Attorney for Plaintiff
YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED TO FILE A
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED
WITHIN TWENTY ISOI DAYS FROM SERVICE
HEREOF OR A JODGMCNT MAY S[
ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
_
or
ATTORNEY
DOUGLAS. DOUGLAS 5 DOUGLAS FCHRIST CERTIFY THAT THE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW JAN 18 20018 TNES OR RINALD CORRECT COPY
11 A ur,., ?[c?
n n. no.:n• ACTION.
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVATIN BY
101T Qim ATTORNEY
GEORGE F. DOUGLAS, III, Esquire
SUPREME COURT I.D. #61886
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
27 W. HIGH ST.
POB 261
CARLISLE PA 17013
TELEPHONE 717-243-1790
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, Plaintiff I
i
99-5481 EQUITY TERM
Vs.
e
i
3
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and '
,CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants '
. i
.... - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . ......
................ . ..................... . . . . ........ . .............. . ....... . ..............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................ . .......................... . ........ . . .......................... _ . . ....... - ....
.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. The plaintiff, Samuel W. Taylor, is an adult individual, currently
residing at 11 South Timber Hollow Drive, # 1122, Fairfield, Ohio 45014.
2. The defendant, T.S. Jar] Uilkema, is an adult individual, currently
residing at 85 East Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. The defendant, Carolyn E. Uilkema, is an adult individual,
currently residing at 85 East Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
4. The plaintiff is the owner of the premises located at 89 East Ridge
Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, through his deed which was
recorded in the Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office at Deed Book 32 R
192 on May 20,1987, (Hereinafter called Taylor's Premises).
5. Defendants are the owners of the premises located at 85 East Ridge
Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, through their deed which
was recorded in the Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office at Deed Book
26 Z 42 on January 10, 1976, (Hereinafter called Uilkema's Premises).
6. In early 1994, the defendants informed the plaintiff that, in their
opinion, the property line between their property and the plaintiff's property ran
along the west wall of plaintiff's garage.
7. It is the plaintiff's position that after purchasing the property on
May 20, 1987, an existing set pin marked the boundary line in question, which
the defendants pointed out to him and agreed to be the boundary line. A picture
of the pin marked with an orange ribbon is attached and marked Exhibit "A".
8. During the Summer of 1994, a survey was conducted by Statler-
Brehm Associates, Inc., to determine the boundary line. The survey concluded
that the property line should be five feet to the east of the existing set pin. A
picture of the stake placed in the ground by Statler-Brehm Associates, Inc., is
attached and marked Exhibit "B".
9. The defendants further informed the plaintiff that the west wall of
the plaintiff's garage extended over the boundary line by approximately 18
inches. A picture of the garage is attached and marked Exhibit "C".
10. The plaintiff maintains that the then existing tree line, the sidewalk
from his house to the garage and the present garage itself had all been in place in
excess of twenty-one (21) years. All items appear on the boundary survey of
Statler-Brehm Associates, Inc., as is evidenced on the attached Exhibit "D".
11. The plaintiff asserts the doctrine of adverse possession, since the
plaintiff has possessed and maintained the said five feet of land of the defendant
for a period in excess of twenty-one (21) years. This possession and maintenance
has been hostile, under a claim of right, exclusive, open and notorious, actual,
and continuous for the requisite period.
12. The plaintiff and his predecessors have placed the defendants on
notice of this adverse claim by continuously maintaining shrubbery, the lawn, a
sidewalk, and a portion of plaintiff's garage (including its roof and overhanging
eve), all of which have been within the disputed area for a period exceeding
twenty-one (21) years. A picture is attached and marked as Exhibit "E".
13. The defendant was placed on notice on June 8,1998, by the former
attorney for the plaintiff, Christopher C. Houston, not to disturb the property in
dispute. Despite this notice, the defendant excavated the area in dispute, which
caused damage to the plaintiff's property, to which the plaintiff makes a claim
against the defendant for monetary damages to restore the property to its
original grade, including but not limited to, replacement of shrubbery, repair of
the lawn, and repair of the brick patio, all of which were severely damaged. A
copy of the letter from Attorney Houston is attached as Exhibit "F". Photographs
of the damage caused to the Taylor Premises by the defendants are attached as
Exhibit "G".
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims of the defendants title to the property
by adverse possession and monetary damages in an amount sufficient to restore
the plaintiff's property to its original condition.
Douglas, Douglas & Douglas
?.
syF. 7a.,? ?
George F. Douglas, III, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
I HEREBY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND
CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND/OR INFORMATION AND
BELIEF.
THIS IS MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA.C.S.§ 4904 RELATING
TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES.
?2v
Samuel W. Taylor
Date: -,a 22.100
Exhibit A
Exhibit 8
ExhibR C
y..rr rr rr th .v rn x?o .nri M[Cr<rip
Exhibit D
'
•` ' ' ? rrL,LL t
_
-
112.7'
.. ? nN»I Pw 7 _ '00"
' 583'50 E 33.00
? a tno w _` 1A9?
EXISTING
LLaWG »rW.
GARAGE
I
II LN•
. I
I
l
??I \
\ rtGGro wt
I L anet r.Q d tw am.
hr'd
7GA000$
NI?IYND COUNTY, PA I ^ rnWe LPCart .q.".
a
PLAN OF BOUN}?ARY SURVEY
SAMUEL 3P TAYLOR
R-BREHM ASSOC1i1 .INC.
anAMC KANNiNa'
a woeM
m
en
M nw (11y??
O? Wes! M 01'n 1fh1?01 IIDI I
' !t COlyyy qt
1
' n ma rwn I
0SA'
,
A. Mpk hro' ?
.
,
a dGn PAM
'
'
• . 80
,
•'
• •
• ..
JOWL Lp,aT hi ?
v4•t+ouse'
'' ?.
RL'UII.MEMA... .
.
RIDGE.STREET'. 1-
.''. .'
• .24 - W
?
r?
?
.
; I W p
N
p
L?
- _ ? N
NN
I` N j
x Y Z
" Ses
I o
i ?
SEE DETAIL'-
---..:....... . , ,5
. - .lnWG; (sanM sdwr% ON PIN YTT
?EIO$TING IRON PIN '
?-
I I
w n.n uw m am nar nar(.no
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Christopher C. Houston
Attorney at Law
52 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
717-241-5970 Facsimile. 717-24"970
June 8, 1998
Mr. and Mrs. T. S. Jarl Uilkema
85 Bast Ridge Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
R8s Samuel W. Taylor
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Uilkema:
L,I„ i a
`•:.ra
It is my understanding from speaking with John Broujos that he will
not be representing you with respect to the boundary dispute as it
relates to my client, Sam Taylor. Mr. Broujos did advise me,
however, that he had advised you to not do any further work along
the area of the property line so as to maintain the status quo
until the issue of the location of the property line is settled.
I am hereby placing you on notice that it is our position that the
status quo should be maintained. If you are not in agreement with
this, then we will have no other alternative but to file the
necessary proceedings with the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
county to. request a preliminary injunction and the issuance of a
Court Order to ask you to cease and desist from any further work.
I would request the courtesy of a telephone call from you, if you
intend on proceeding with additional work within the area of
dispute.
You should be advised that we are in the meantime preparing and
will file very shortly a Complaint to request the Court to
establish the location of the property line.
Mr. and Mrs. T. J. Jarl Uilkema 2
June 8, 1995
In the meantime, I would ask that you please have the attorney that
will be representing you in these proceedings contact me as soon as
possible.
Very truly yours,
kb
Christopher C. Houston
CC: Samuel W. Taylor
Exhibk 0
Exhibit G
YOU ARE HEREOF REQUIRED TO FILE A
WRITTEN RESPONSL TO THE ENCLOSLD
WITHIN TWENTY 1301 DAYS FROM SERVICE
,HEREOF pR A JUDGNCNT MAY Of
ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
'???
my
TTORN[ _ Uf
DOUGLAS. Dou,Lns 6 DoUGLA°.:
nrrOnnlr n iwq
Cn{IL ir,L[f I•rrr:r r. v+. :m ri bl
voiTOSr.i
WE 00 HERFOT CEO"" TNnY TNC
WITHIN IS A TRUE AND: +RNE LT (IOPY
01 THE ORIGINAL F L?[D!?IN TNU,
ACTION. ?I..II L,5 'llll?l-I
Ov _.?.____.
AIIOAN[Y
f
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff
VS.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION -LAW
: 99-3481 EQUITY TERM
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT
AND NOW comes Defendants T.S. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E. Uilkema by their attorney John
H. Broujos of Broujos & Gilroy, P.C. and sets forth the following preliminary objections, in
accordance with Pa RCP 1028:
I. INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY IN THE COMPLAINT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PaRCP 1028 (a) (3)
With respect to Pa RCP 1028 (a)(3), Plaintiff has failed to specify the specific nature and
amount of damages referred to in the general demand for damages in paragraph 13: "...to which
the Plaintiff makes a claim against the Defendant for money damages..." In the unnumbered
prayer section there is a reference only to "monetary damages."
2. Plaintiff has failed to provide a description of the area claimed, with reference only to the
deed book numbers and a survey.
3. The Complaint fails to set forth the actual possession, merely referring to "excess of
twenty-one (21) years."
4. Complaint fails to set forth facts establishing adverse possession, in that the requirement
of continuance adverse possession is not established by listing the "tacking" properties, owners,
and deed dates and references to establish the 21-year period. Plaintiff in paragraph 4 only refers
to the period from May 20, 1997 to the present, which does not constitute a 21-year period. In
paragraph 11, Plaintiff refers to the single Plaintiff "has possessed and maintained" the five foot
overhang for over 21 years, whereas Plaintiff had no ownership during the entire period and
makes no reference to other prior possessors.
5. Complaint fails to state that the possession by the Plaintiff was exclusive or distinct, since
merely giving notice of an adverse claim or exercising a possession does not make the
possession exclusive. A mere recitation of requirements of adverse possession, such as saying
that possession has been "exclusive" does not establish the facts in supporting a claim of adverse
possession.
II. FAILURE OF COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO LAW OR RULE OF COURT,
IN ACCORDANCE TO PA.RCP 1028 (a) (2)
6. The Complaint fails to comply with 68 PS 82, 84f, in that anyone who claims title to any
real estate by 21 years adverse possession and shall not be in possession, shall within six months
from the time of withdrawing from or being out of said possession, file in the Recorder's Office
a written statement of his claim. Complaint in paragraph 11 refers to possession of "said five
feet of land", and refers in paragraph 9 to the west wall extending over the boundary line "by
approximately 18 inches." Since there is no allegation of total possession of the entire disputed
property, Defendant is unable to determine if Act under 68 PS 81 ff is applicable.
7. In addition, if there are any portions of the disputed land over which possession has not
been exercised, Plaintiff is required to set forth an abstract of title upon which he relies. See 42
PS Rule 1054. An action to quiet title follows acquisition of title by reason of adverse
possession.
III. LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PaRCP 1028 (a) (4)
8. Plaintiff prematurely pleads damages to a claimed property interest for which he is asking
the court to establish title in Plaintiff. P has no title until the court so finds. Damages aaaare not
only vague and unarticulated; thre is no legal right to claim damages.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray the Honorable Court to dismiss the Complaint.
Jo H. Broujos, Attom6y for Plaintiff
hWK 1 ?l?lil0 4 N. Hanover Street
Carl sle, PA 17013
71 243 4574 Fax 243 8227
PaBar 6268
?- C1
7t.. ?
lLr4 =0 'i.?
`j
U
GEORGE F. DOUGLAS, III, Esquire
SUPREME COURT I.D. #61886
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
27 W. HIGH ST.
POB 261
CARLISLE PA 17013
TELEPHONE 717-243-1790
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
...................................................._......._...._......._._.........._.... _...._._._...__.__....__....__.......__._
... N - LAW
= CIVIL AC . TIO .
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, Plaintiff I!
99-5481 EQUITY TERM
Vs.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
.M .._ ....... µ.................... ....._........ i.............,...Y..............I...... -.-.?....._... ? ?? ._
SECOND AMEND .D COMPLAINT
1. The plaintiff, Samuel W. Taylor, is•an adult individual, currently
residing at 11 South Timber Hollow Drive, #1122, Fairfield, Ohio 45014.
2. The defendant, T.S. Jarl Uilkema, is an adult individual, currently
residing at 85 East Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. The defendant, Carolyn E. Uilkema, is an adult individual,
currently residing at 85 East Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania. x>.
4. The plaintiff is the owner of the premises located at 89 East Ridge
Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, through his deed which was
recorded in the Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office at Deed Book 32 R
192 on May 20,1987, (Hereinafter called Taylor's Premises).
V
5. Defendants are the owners of the premises located at 85 East Ridge
Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, through their deed which
was recorded in the Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office at Deed Book
26 Z 42 on January 10, 1976, (Hereinafter called Uilkema's Premises).
6. In early 1994, the defendants informed the plaintiff that, in their
opinion, the property line between their property and the plaintiffs property ran
along the west wall of plaintiff's garage.
7. It is the plaintiff's position that after purchasing the property on
May 20, 1987, an existing set pin marked the boundary line in question, which
the defendants pointed out to him and agreed to be the boundary line. A picture
of the pin marked with an orange ribbon is attached and marked Exhibit "A".
8. During the Summer of 1994, a survey was conducted by Statler-
Brehm Associates, Inc., to determine the boundary line. The survey concluded
that the property line should be five feet to the east of the existing set pin. More
particularly, on the west side of the property owned by Samuel W. Taylor,
beginning at a point bordering East Ridge Street North 83 degrees 50 minutes
West five feet. Then North 5 degrees 42 minutes 30 seconds East 175 feet to a
point bordering the existing alleyway. Then South 83 degrees 50 minutes East
for a distance of five feet. Then South 5 degrees 42 minutes 30 seconds West for a
distance of 175 feet to the place of Beginning. A picture of the stake placed in the
ground by Statler-Brehm Associates, Inc., is attached and marked Exhibit "B".
9. The defendants further informed the plaintiff that the west wall of
the plaintiff's garage extended over the boundary line by approximately 18
inches. A picture of the garage is attached and marked Exhibit "C".
10. The plaintiff maintains that the then existing tree line, the sidewalk
from his house to the garage and the present garage itself had all been in place in
excess of twenty-one (21) years. All items appear on the boundary survey of
Statler-Brehm Associates, Inc., as is evidenced on the attached Exhibit "D".
11. The plaintiff asserts the doctrine of adverse possession, since the
plaintiff has possessed and maintained the said five feet of land of the defendant
for a period in excess of twenty-one (21) years. This possession and maintenance
has been hostile, under a claim of right, exclusive, open and notorious, actual,
and continuous for the requisite period. More particularly, the property in
question has been owned by Samuel W. Taylor from May 20, 1987, to the present.
Prior to that time, the property was owned by Richard C. Ward and Lisa P. Ward
for a period commencing April 7, 1983, to May 20, 1987. Prior thereto, the
property was owned by James Prescott, III and Wilma B. Prescott for a period of
time commencing September 15, 1982, until April 7,1983. Prior to that time, the
property was owned by Robert and Jean Rockwell for a period commencing
November 24, 1944, to September 15, 1982. The aforesaid owners have occupied
said property in dispute from 1944 to the present. The ownership of the
aforelisted property owners constituted exclusive, distinct and total possession,
in that a fence was erected, a garage constructed and other improvements made,
which existed for a period in excess of twenty-one (21) years.
12. The plaintiff and his predecessors have placed the defendants on
notice of this adverse claim by continuously maintaining shrubbery, the lawn, a
sidewalk, and a portion of plaintiff's garage (including its roof and overhanging
eve), all of which have been within the disputed area for a period exceeding
twenty-one (21) years. A picture is attached and marked as Exhibit "E".
13. The defendant was placed on notice on June 8, 1998, by the former
attorney for the plaintiff, Christopher C. Houston, not to disturb the property in
dispute. Despite this notice, the defendant excavated the area in dispute, which
caused damage to the plaintiff's property, to which the plaintiff makes a claim
against the defendant for monetary damages to restore the property to its
original grade, including but not limited to, replacement of shrubbery, repair of
the lawn, and repair of the brick patio, all of which were severely damaged. A
copy of the letter from Attorney Houston is attached as Exhibit "F". Photographs
of the damage caused to the Taylor Premises by the defendants are attached as
Exhibit "G".
14. As a result of the conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff has
suffered property damages of approximately $5,000.00, which must be expended
to restore the property to its original condition. With respect to said damages,
Defendants Uilkema were put on notice of the dispute but nonetheless elected to
bring in a backhoe and destroy the property of the plaintiff. More particularly, a
brick patio was destroyed, phone lines were cut, a hedgerow was removed,
clothesline poles, which were set in cement, were torn out, and the grade to said
property was destroyed.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims of the defendants title to the property
by adverse possession and monetary damages in an amount sufficient to restore
the plaintiff's property to its original condition.
Douglas, Douglas & Douglas
By ?augR4„,
George F. Douglas, III, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Affidavit
This verification is made pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1024(c) by counsel for the
Plaintiff. To the best of signer's knowledge, information and belief, the
information is true and correct.
G,
Dated: PAmuap
2000
P.
George F. Douglas, I
Attorney for plaintiff
? ? Yl flnp??p' ru n]u? Imi gacu ® ? ?? '
Exhlbft A
... v.n . ro m.. .. .,..m
Exhibit B
Exhib(t C
,2t=-
Exhibit D
•112704"^"? - : _'? ," SET S :8350'00" E 33.00'
a~m fit.
MUM
IAr
.,• O v?R mot[[[
• e
t
` .. K[NSUt wu
",in Off,
,
l
l
fi
i
'DETM
SEE
WtY OO[[Yp
.-I ?
z .
dl? I
All
%/ SET
F.?
??i
u.anvucL m.m-me' :on ncc.cun ® ,
ExhibR E
."
Exhibit F
.J
Christopher C. Houston
Attornep at Law
52 West PanOd Street ?.
Q" k, Pauayhw4 J 7013! •P
717.241-5970 Fac imilet 717-241.6970
June 8, 1998
Mr* and Mrs. T. S. Jarl Uilkema
85 Bast Ridge Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
IMI Samuel N. Taylor
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Uilkema:
It is my understanding from speaking with John Broujos that he will
not be representing You with respect to the boundary, di
relates to my client, Sam Taylor. spute as it
Mr. Broujos did advise me,
however, that he had advised you to not
the area do any further work along
of the property line so as to maintain the status quo
Intl hereby issue of the location of the property line is settled.
placing you on notice that it is our position that the
status quo should be maintained. If you are not in agreement with
this, then we will have no other alternative but to file the
necessary proceedings with the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
County to. request a preliminary injunction and the issuance of a
Court Order to ask you to cease and desist from any further work.
I would request the courtesy of a telephone call from you, if you
intend on proceeding with additional work within the area of
dispute.
You should be advised that we are in the meantime preparing and
will file
establish very shortly a Complaint to request
the location of the pro the Court to
t
Per Y line.
Mr. and Mrs. T. J. Jarl Uilkema 2
June 8, 1998
rn the meantime, I would ask that you please have the attorney that
will be representing you in these proceedings contact me as soon as
possible.
very truly yours,
kb
cc: Samuel W. Taylor
Christopher C. Houston
\ • d
Exhibit Q
o?
tj
•i
c?,
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, Plaintiff
99-5481 EQUITY TERM
Vs.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and CAROLYN
E. UILKEMA, Defendants
TO: T. J. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E. Uilkema
c/o John H. Broujos, Esquire, their attorney
Broujos and Gilroy
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date of Notice: May 5, 2000
IMPORTANT NOTICE
YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A
WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILE IN
WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE
CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED
AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR
PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS
NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR
CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE
TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET HELP.
Legal Referral Service
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166
D014PLAS, DOUG
Attomey fo Plaintiff
27 West High Street
P.O. Box 261
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-1790
C 2
WCJ ? J4
tljtu
C> C) j
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff
V9.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: 99-5481 EQUITY TERM
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Denied. On the contrary, Defendants stated that the property line was near the wall of the
garage. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the rest of the averment.
Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the rest of the averment.
8. Denied. On the contrary, the averment conflicts with Plaintiffs survey. The survey does
not lead to the conclusions averred. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. Plaintiff is
attempting to prove a boundary line by alleged admissions of Defendants that contradict the
survey.
9. Denied. On the contrary, Defendant Jarl advised Plaintiff that he was of the opinion that
the west wall of the garage appeared to encroach over the apparent boundary line for some
distance. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment.
10. Denied. Admitted that the monuments referred to appear on the boundary survey; denied
that they had been in place in excess of 21 years. After reasonable investigation Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment.
11. Assertion of the doctrine of adverse possession is a conclusion not requiring a response.
Denied that Plaintiff has possessed and maintained the five feet of land of Defendants for a
period in excess of 21 years. Denied that any possession and maintenance has been hostile,
under a claim of right, exclusive, open and notorious, actual and continuous for any requisite
period. The averment lacks specificity. Admitted that Plaintiff owned property from May 20,
1987. Admitted that property was owned by Richard C. Ward, et al, for a period commencing
April 7, 1983 to May 20, 1987. Admitted that property was owned by James Prescott III, et al,
for the period from September 15, 1982 to April 7, 1983. Admitted that the property was owned
by Robert and Jean Rockwell for a period from November 24, 1944 to September 15, 1982.
Denied that owners of occupied property in dispute from 1944 to the present; since the word
"occupied" is both a conclusion of law and a matter of fact. Denied that the ownership of any
property owners constituted exclusive, distinct and total possession, or that a fence was erected,
garage constructed and other improvements made, for a period in excess of 21 years. After
reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the averment.
12. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment.
13. Denied that Defendants disturbed any property that was not the property of Defendants.
Admitted that a notice was received. Denied that Defendants executed any area that was not a
property of Defendants; that he caused damage to Plaintiffs property; that Plaintiff is entitled to
any claim for damages. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment.
14. Denied that Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $5,000 and denied that any
expenditure was necessary to restore property; and denied that any property proposed to be
restored was the property of Plaintiff. Admitted that Defendants received the notice referred to
in paragraph 13. Denied that Defendants destroyed property of Plaintiff. On the contrary, at all
times Defendants acted within their own rights on their own property; that they owned or
reasonably believed they owned. Denied that any brick patio was destroyed, that phone lines
were cut, that a hedgerow was removed and that clothesline poles were torn out; and that if any
such actions occurred, they were justified on the basis that ownership of the land was in
Defendants, as averred throughout this answer. Denied that the grade to any property was
destroyed or, if destroyed, was on any property other than the property of Defendants. After
reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the averment.
NEW MATTER
15. Defendants at all time herein mentioned and still are the owners of the premises referred
to in this action.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court to dismiss the Complaint.
COUNTERCLAIM IN EJECTMENT
Defendants set forth this counterclaim in Ejectment.
16. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are incorporated herein by reference.
17. Plaintiff on or about the Summer of 1998 unlawfully entered onto that portion of the
premises described herein below and without right or authority of law deprived Defendants of
the possessory right to the premises,
18. The chain of title of Plaintiff is set forth in Exhibit H attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
19. The chain of title of Defendants is set forth in Exhibit I attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
20. Since the occupation by Plaintiff of premises at his above address, Plaintiff has
encroached upon the property of Defendants, as described by deed in Deed Book 26 Z, as set
forth in Exhibit I.
A. The encroachment has occurred as a result of the overhang of the roof of the
garage over the Premises of Defendants as admitted by Defendants in paragraphs,
including paragraph 11, above and as set forth on Exhibit E.
B. Exercise by Plaintiff of possession of a portion of Defendants' property as
identified on Exhibit E; and encroachment of the garage owned by Plaintiff.
C. Exercise of possession and control by construction works and activities through
digging, removal of plants and soil, and other acts of possessory interests.
21. Defendant has warned Plaintiff about encroachment and has demanded that Plaintiff
cease and desist from his encroachment and trespass upon the property of Defendants, without
avail.
22. Defendants ask the Court to issue an order of ejectment of Plaintiff from the premises
described herein constituting the encroachment and trespass.
23. Defendants have been damaged, and ask the Court to provide appropriate relief in
damages for trees and plants removed, disturbance of the land, erection of fences or barriers, and
pain, suffering, and inconvenience; and to recover court costs and legal fees for the capricious,
arbitrary, and vexatious conduct of Plaintiff prior to and in these proceedings.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray this Honorable Court to issue an order restoring Defendants to
the possession of the above-described real property, for costs, and such other relief as is
equitable and just. N ?. r'
May 12, 2000
41_ . anover Street
li e, PA 17013
71 43 4574 Fax 243 8227
PaBar 6268
EXHIBIT H - CHAIN OF TITLE OF PLAINTIFF
89 E. Ridge Street
2-8-43 Charles C. Weidner to Chester W. & Marion B. Weidner 120 541
11-24-44 Chester W. & Marion B. Weidner to Robert W. & Jean E. Rockwell
12 X 187
9-15-82 Robert W. & Jean E. Rockwell to James & Wilma Prescott 29 X 229
4-7-83 James & Wilma B. Prescott, III to Richard C. & Lisa P Ward 30 C 987
5-2-87 Richard C. & Lisa P. Ward to Samuel W. Taylor 32 R192
EXHIBIT I - CHAIN OF TITLE OF DEFENDANTS
85 E. Ridge Street
4-8-46 Charles C. Weidner to Paul E. & Hazel M. Shover 13 F 202
(Paul died 9-25-69)
1-10-77 Hazel M. Shover to Jar] & Carolyn Uilkema 26 Z 42
We verify that the statements made in this pleading are true and correct. We understand that
false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to
unswom falsification to authorities.
May 12, 2000
May 12, 2000 CaqAl '1'L 1
Carolyn E. Uilk a
. .?,
_
?
_, .. .
?: r? ?;
? -
i
..
i.. ,_'
(
"-
Y)?;
?
?r. ?
11 "a
•.:_.
?
"-'
! >-_ -rte
F: r. ;•I r41
4.
U
??
U G
?,:1f?vH
:l.
i
iy?y
'?
'" 3i
GEORGE F. DOUGLAS, III, ESQUIRE
SUPREME COURT I.D. # 61886
WILLIAM P. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SUPREME COURT I.D. # 37926
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
27 W. HIGH ST.
POB 261
CARLISLE PA 17013
TELEPHONE 717-243-1790
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, Plaintiff
Vs 99-5481 EQUITY TERM
.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and CAROLYN
REPLY TO NEW MATTER
15. Denied. At all times relative hereto, the defendants are not the
owners of the disputed portion of the premises, due to the plaintiffs claim of
adverse possession.
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM IN EiECTMENT AND NEW MATTER
16. The original allegations of paragraphs 1 through 6 are incorporated
herein and reference is made thereto.
17. Denied. At no time did the plaintiff unlawfully enter onto a
portion of the premises owned by the defendants.
18. Denied as stated. It is admitted that these are the individuals who
transferred property from one to another as listed in Defendants' Exhibit H.
19. Denied as stated. It is admitted that these are the individuals who
transferred property from one to another as listed in Defendants' Exhibit I.
20. Denied. At no time has the plaintiff encroached upon the property
of defendants. Plaintiff openly and freely exercised dominion and control over
the property which was consistent with the iron pin which had been in existence
in excess of twenty-one (21) years, and the structures on the premises, or a like
structure, which had been in existence for a period in excess of twenty-one (21)
years.
A. - C. Denied as stated. At all times relevant hereto, and for a
period in excess of twenty-one (21) years, a garage has existed in the same
location, which is the property claimed by the plaintiff due to adverse
possession.
21. Denied. The plaintiff was not trespassing on the property of the
defendants but was merely maintaining the property, which the plaintiff
believed he owned pursuant to the existing landmarks and through a claim of
adverse possession.
22. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary.
23. Denied. At no time did the plaintiff damage or remove any plants
or trees. These were the acts of the defendants. With respect to the remaining
allegations, there is no claim for pain and suffering for a potential injury to real
property, and at no time has the plaintiff acted in a capricious, arbitrary and
vexatious manner.
NEW MATTER
24. All allegations in the Second Amended Complaint are incorporated
herein and reference is made thereto, as if fully set forth.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the Counterclaim in Ejectment of the
defendants be dismissed.
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
By 7 c dc. saug? tG
June 2, 2000 George F. Douglas, III, Esquire
By kr: J_- V -?Al_
William P. Douglas, squire
VERIFICATION
This verification is made pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1024(c) by counsel for the
Plaintiff. To the best of signer's knowledge, information and belief, the
information is true and correct.
Dated: June 2, 2000 F. 1_
George F. Douglas,
Attorney for plaintiff
t
Y
i `
• C'•
t_
CSI C:
4'. L](L
c. C7 -?
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
(Check one) ( ) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court.
X ) for trial without a jury.
JUN - 5 2000
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated In full)
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
VS.
(Plaintiff)
(check one) ter' r
co: Cj"
Assumpsit
( ) Trespass E5
rn
( ) Trespass (Motor
Vehicle) r0
( X)> ±ty
(o ther)
The trial list will be called on
and
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Vs.
(Defendant)
Trials commence on
Pretrials will be held on
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.)
(The party listing this case for trial shall provide
forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel,
pursuant to local Rule-214.1.)
No.99-54g1 _ S7[DIX}C' EglritY Term X1lgl?
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
George F. Douglas, III, b William P. Douglas, Esq.
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: John H. Brou f os, Esq., 4 North Hanover
Rrrnar ^arlisle. PA 1701O Defendants
This case is ready for trial.
Date: Juno L-2000
UGLAS, DOUGLAS 6 DOU S
Signed:
Print Name: George F. Douglas, III, Esq.
Attorney for: Plaintiff __ _
K WQIJAM P. DOUGLAS. ESQ.
Supreme Court LD.137926
TELEPHONE 717.243.1790 GEORGE P. DOUGLAS, M. M.
R Supreme Court I.D.O 61886
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
27 W. HIGH ST.
POB 261
CARLISLE PA 17013
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
W
PLAINTIFF
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and CAROLYN
E. UILKEMA,
To: Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary
IN THE COURTOFWXAON PLEASOF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
EQUITY
1999 - 5481 igrp E TERM
CIVILACTION LAW
PRAECIPE
Please substitute the attached plaintiff verification for the
counsel verification attached to the Reply to New Matter and
Answer to Counterclaim in Ejectment and New Matter filed June 2,
2000.
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
Date. June 5, 2000 by C uS
Attorney for the Pl intiff
rr
?Q
..
`
it
' '7 4
u- O J
I
00/02/00 10:23 FAX 717 243 8933 DOUGLAS LAW OFFICES W IM 005
i
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
SS.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND )
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and
correct, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that
false statements herein made are subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904
relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
IMMLZ. Woo g a B>L'
Date Samuel W. Taylor
'-
r
?i r;
?_? ?-
u ",i
.-???- -a
nj
i
%i? .,_
?:;1`
[?n: :.7 207
u:'.. 4 ,??1L
?i
?]
5 ? ti
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
(Check one) ( ) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court.
( X ) for trial without a jury.
CAPTION OF CASE `'
(entire caption must be stated in full)
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
VS.
The trial list will be called on
(Plaintiff)
(check one)
( ) Assumpsit
( ) Trespass
( ) Trespass (Motor Vehicle)
( X) Equity
(other)
and
T. S. JARL UILKENA and
CAROLYN E. UILKERA,
(Defendant)
Trials commence on
vs.
Pretrials will be held on
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.)
(The party listing this case for trial shall provide
forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel,
pursuant to local Rule 214.1.)
No.99$1
_ S]hlIXX Equity Term )C7ptj(_
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
George F. Douglas, III, & William P. Douglas, Esq.
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: John H. Broujos, Esq., 4 North Hanover
qt*rppt. r Carlisle. PA 17013, or Defendants
This case is ready for trial.
Date: r,,,,a 5 _ 2NQ__
UGLAS, DOUGLAS d DOU AS
Signed: (46
Print Name: George F. Douglas, III, Esq.
Plaintiff
Attorney for: _.
?r,?. In
•
) ._ I r r5
LL on-
O ? U
O'
H
SAMUEL W, TAYLOR,
PLAINTIFF
V.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-5484 EQUITY TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this V q f^ day of July, 2000, an equity adjudication in the
above-captioned matter is scheduled for Thursday, August 31, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., in
Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
By theCourt??
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
George F. Douglas, III, Esquire
For Plaintiff
John H. Broujos, Esquire
For Defendants
Court Administrator
:sea
C? - -
7-/7-0a
13
GU,tfc Jw ;!!`? ti !7Y
. r,?51
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
DEFENDANTS 99-5481 EQUITY TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this bday of September, 2000, oral argument is
scheduled for Thursday, September 21, 2000, at 3:30 p.m., in
By
Edgar
George F. Douglas, III, Esquire
For Plaintiff
John H. Broujos, Esquire
For Defendants
C `
AX3
:saa
F LED-C TOE
CF '! '!? FUONOTARY
00ISEP 15 RN 8s 18
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
PLAINTIFF
V.
T,S. JARL UILKEMA AND
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-5481 EQUITY
DECREE NISI
AND NOW, this 6 day of December, 2000, IT IS DECREED that
plaintiffs claim by adverse possession to a five feet strip of land on the property of
defendants, IS DISMISSED.
By
Edgar B. Bayley,
William P. Douglas, Esquire
For Plaintiff
John H. Broujos, Esquire
For Defendants
:sea
OQI? r7.V P?'I 1:2n
CUP I:: C. C;l NTY
PcNN;`r I `S;f•!lA
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
PLAINTIFF
V.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA AND
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
DEFENDANTS
Bayley, J., December 26, 2000:--
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-5481 EQUITY
On May 20, 1987, plaintiff, Samuel W. Taylor, purchased a residence from
Richard and Lisa Ward at 89 East Ridge Street, in the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland
County. The property was owned by the Wards from April 7,1983 to May 20, 1987.
From September 15, 1982 until April 7, 1983, it was owned by James and Wilma
Prescott. From November 24, 1944 to September 15, 1982, it was owned by Robert
and Jean Rockwell.
On July 10, 1977, defendants, T.S. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E. Uilkema,
purchased a residence from Hazel Shover at 85 East Ridge Street. Hazel Shover and
her husband had purchased the property on April 8, 1946. Defendants' property is
immediately to the west of plaintiffs property.
On September 8, 1999, plaintiff instituted this suit in equity against defendants.
In a second amended complaint, plaintiff seeks a decree declaring him the owner by
adverse possession of a five feet strip of defendants' land to the west of plaintiffs
99-5481 EQUITY
Property. He also seeks damages for changes that defendants have made to the five
feet strip. The meets and bounds in the deeds into both plaintiff and defendants, as
depicted on a boundary survey of Statler-Brehm Associates, Inc., dated April 23, 1998,
show that the five feet strip is within boundary of the property deeded into the Uilkemas
in 1977. There is a garage at an alley at the rear of plaintiffs property. As shown on
the survey, the garage extends .58 inches into the Uilkemas' property, and overhangs
into the Uilkemas' property 1.69 feet in the front and 1.83 feet in the back.
Plaintiff testified that when he moved to 89 East Ridge Street in 1987, there was
a five feet hedge in the frontyard to the west of his house. There was a retaining wall
on the west side of the hedge. A wire fence started at a point across from a bay
window in his house and ran north. It was difficult to see the fence that ran within some
shrubs and by some trees. Plaintiff testified that he did not know how far north the
fence went, although it did not attach to the garage. Plaintiff testified that in 1987, he
had a discussion with Jarl Uilkema as to who should trim the hedge. At that time,
Uilkema showed him an iron pin at the base of the hedge, which Uilkema said he
believed was the property line.
Plaintiff testified that he maintained all of the property to the east side of the
fence. A dispute arose with defendants in 1994, as to where the boundary line was
between their properties. The Statler-Brehm showed that the boundary between the
-2-
99-5481 EQUITY
properties was five feet east of the pin that Uilkema had shown to plaintiff in 1987.'
The Uilkemas then planted vegetables and flowers within the five feet area. At the rear,
they built.? parking area within the five feet area. Later, they removed the old fence,
wall, and hedgerow.1
Plaintiffs predecessor in title, Jean Rockwell, testified that she and her husband
purchased 89 East Ridge Street in 1944. The Weidners lived next door, then later the
Shovers. There was a garage to the rear of the Rockwell property. Rockwell testified
that in 1950, she and her husband moved the garage further west. In 1948, she and
her husband installed a fence between their house and the Shover property. The fence
remained in the same location for the entire time they owned the property. It was
attached to the back of their house and went to a point that was two feet from a
concrete wall to the west. Rockwell believed, although she did not know for sure, that
the wall was the property line between the two properties. The wall was at a sunken
driveway. At the point where the fence was two feet from the wall, it went north to the
back of their property at the edge of the garage. Rockwell testified that she and her
husband maintained the land between the house and the wall. They put a hedge along
the wall from Ridge Street to the rear of their house which they maintained. She
' Statler-Brehm Associates, Inc., did not prepare an actual diagram of its survey
until April 23, 1998.
= Plaintiffs house is now rented. Plaintiff was stationed at the United States
Army War College in Carlisle. In the summer of 1997, he moved to a new assignment
in Ohio.
-3-
99-5481 EQUITY
believed that they eventually took the hedge out.
Rockwell was shown a copy of Exhibit Number 1, the Statler-Brehm survey. On
that Exhibit there is an orange line identified as an "existing fence" which runs from the
front, southwest corner of 89 East Ridge Street to a point close to what is identified as
an existing concrete wall. It then runs north, parallel to the concrete wall. The orange
marking ends at a point just beyond and across from the north end of a concrete patio
to the rear of the house. Rockwell testified that this fence as depicted in orange on
Exhibit 1 was not there when she owned the property.
Richard Ward and his wife purchased 89 East Ridge Street from the Prescotts
on April 17, 1983. Ward testified that when he purchased the property the garage was
in disrepair. It was leaning at a forty-five degree angle. He repaired the garage, which
included straightening it up. The garage was kept in the same location. The Uilkemas
lived next door. Prescott testified that:
[t]here was a wire fence running from the garage up close to the front of
the property where there was a green hedge growing. And I don't recall if
the wire fence actually ran up the front yard. But 1 do know it ran up the
side. It ran in the backyard up the side, at least to where the house
stopped, if I recall.... It went to the corner of the garage. (Emphasis
added.)
Referring to Exhibit Number 1, Ward testified that the fence ran from the corner
of the garage:
It came up along the property. There was some trees along here. And it
ran sought of into the trees. And then there was a concrete wall here, and
the fence ran along the concrete wall .... It was right on the wall.
-4-
99-5481 EQUITY
Ward testified that he maintained the land on his side of the fence. He installed
the brick patio shown on Exhibit 1 which is directly to the rear of the house. Ward drew
a blue mark on the Exhibit at the corner of the garage to show where the fence started.
He testified that the fence then went west until it made an approximate ninety-degree
angle to run south. It was "a foot, two feet, it wasn't very much" to the west side of his
garage. Ward testified that between his property and the Ulikemas' property there was
some trees:
[a]nd there was sought of a rusting fence, metal, the thin kind, that ran
between the two properties. And the fence kind of weaves in between a
couple of the trees that were there.
Ward assumed that the fence went along the boundary line between the
properties. He testified that he never moved the fence. He mowed the grass in the
area between the fence and his house and he also trimmed the hedge. Referring to the
concrete wall as shown on Exhibit 1, Ward testified that he believed the hedge ran
along the length of the wall. He was asked if the hedge was on the inside of the wire
fence or on the outside of the wire fence. He stated "I think it kind of ran in the middle
of it." Ward marked Exhibit 1 with a blue dotted line showing the fence running from the
area where the orange marking of an existing fence ends, to the garage at the rear of
the property.
Jarl Uilkema testified and was asked when he moved to the property in 1977,
what was between the two homes. He stated:
There was a retaining wall. There was a hedge that was built
-5-
99-5481 EQUITY
partially along the retaining wall and this is now looking in a northerly
direction. The hedge was probably about, 50, 60 feet long, and then it
terminated, and if I recall at a couple of column of trees. There was a
Maple tree and then we got to the end of the retaining wall. The end of
the retaining wall is 100 feet from the sidewalk. So it was 40 feet of a few
trees, there was approximately 60 feet of hedge.
Uilkema was asked whether there was any fencing of any kind between the two
properties, and he answered "No, there wasn't." There were no fences between the
properties when the Rockwells lived at 89 East Ridge Street. Uilkema testified that in
early 1983, Rich Ward wanted to build a fence to protect his children. Uilkema testified
that he gave Ward permission to install a fence. He testified that it ran "roughly from
the corner of the garage to the trees that were growing along the retaining wall. He
testified that by the time Ward moved into the property the fence was partially collapsed
and disseminated. Uilkema testified that when Ward moved from the property in 1987,
he took part of the fence down.
The Uilkemas testified that when they moved to 85 East Ridge Street in 1977,
the Rockwells were not living in their house at 89 East Ridge Street, nor did they live in
the house until it was sold to the Prescotts in 1982. Jarl Uilkema testified that in 1977,
he did an unofficial survey of his boundary line and discovered that a portion of the
garage to the rear of 89 East Ridge Street, as well as an overhang on the garage, were
over the boundary of the property at 85 East Ridge Street.
In Palac v. DiSanto, 424 Pa. Super. 277 (1993), the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania stated:
-6-
99-5481 EQUITY
In Pennsylvania, the elements necessary to prove title through
adverse possession were listed in Conneaut Lake Park v. Klingensmith,
362 Pa. 592, 66 A.2d 828, 829 (1949); It has long been the settled rule in
this Commonwealth that one who claims title by adverse possession must
prove that he had actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct,
and hostile possession of the land for twenty-one years. Each of these
elements must exist, otherwise the possession will not confer title.
(Citations omitted).
Recently, the elements of adverse possession have been refined
so as to create a presumption that where "all other elements of adverse
possession have been established, hostility will be implied, regardless of
the subjective state of mind of the trespasser." Tioga Coal v.
Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 519 Pa. 66, 546 A.2d 1, 5 (1988).
In Inn Le'Daerda, Inc. v. Davis, 241 Pa. Super. 150 (1976), the Superior Court
of Pennsylvania stated:
Our courts have long recognized, however, that a boundary line
may be proved by a long-standing fence without proof of a dispute and its
settlement by a compromise. In Dimura v. Williams, [446 Pa. 316 (1972)],
the court noted:
It cannot be disputed that occupation up to a fence on each
side by a party or two parties for more than twenty-one years, each
party claiming the land on his side as his own, gives to each an
incontestable right up to the fence, and equally whether the fence
is precisely on the right line or not. Id. 446 Pa. At 319, 286 A.2d at
372.
In such a situation the parties need not have specifically consented to the
location of the line. Dimura v. Williams, supra 319, 286 A.2d at 371. It
must nevertheless appear that for the requisite twenty-one years a line
was recognized and acquiesced in as a boundary by adjoining
landowners. See Miles v. Pennsylvania Coal Co., 245 Pa. 94, 91 A. 211
(1914); Reiter v. McJunkin, 173 Pa. 82, 33 A. 1012 (1986). As the court in
Reiter noted, "[t]he value of such a fence does not rest upon the acts of
him who alleges its existence merely, but upon its recognition and
maintenance, [sic] by the owners of the farms which it separates, as the
line between." Id. At 85, 33 A. at 1012. Thus, in Omensetter v. Kemper,
6 Pa.Super. 309 (1898), the defendant did not prevail, since although he
established the existence of a fence for some thirty-five years, he failed to
establish its character as a boundary line for the requisite period. With
-7-
99-5481 EQUITY
regard to the fence, this court pointed out.
It does not appear who built or maintained it; whether it was
intended to mark the true line or a consentable line; whether it was
recognized by former owners as indicating the boundary, or
whether [the defendant's wife's] predecessors in title had claimed
and held up to it. It merely calling it a division or line fence by the
defendant and his wife, in their testimony, does not make it one. It
was their duty to supply the jury with facts."
6 Pa.Super. 309, 318 (emphasis added). (Footnotes omitted.)
In Parks v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 301 Pa. 475, the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania stated:
A sporadic use of land, by one without title to it, will not operate to
give him a title, no matter how often repeated.... It is true that residence
is not necessary to make an adverse possession within the statue of
limitation; the possession may be adverse by enclosing and cultivating the
land ... but nothing short of an actual possession, permanently
continued, will take away from the owner the possession which the law
attaches to the legal title; temporary acts on the land, without an intention
to seat and occupy it for residence and cultivation or other permanent use
consistent with the nature of the property, are not the actual possession
required.... Such occupation must be exclusive, and of such a character
as compels the i --al owner to take notice of the possession of the
disseisor....
In the case sub judice, the evidence of the various witnesses is conflicting. The
nature of the claimed division between the properties of plaintiff and defendants is
different toward the front, to the south, than toward the back, to the north. According to
Jean Rockwell, who owned 89 East Ridge Street from November 21, 1944 to
September 15, 1982, there was no fence of any kind between the properties from the
front at Ridge Street to a point at the rear of her house. Thereafter, apparently some
type of wire fencing was placed within some hedgerow and shrubs and trees in that
-8-
99-5481 EQUITY
area. That fence became deteriorated. The record does not contain the necessary
evidence that for twenty-one years either a fence or a clearly discernable division of five
feet within the land comprising 85 East Ridge Street was maintained from Ridge Street
north to a point across from the rear of the house on 89 East Ridge Street.
Jean Rockwell did testified that in 1948, she and her husband installed a fence
that was attached to the back of their house and went to a point that was two feet from
a concrete wall to the west. The fence then went north toward the back of her property
to the southwest edge of their garage, but not all the way to the alley. Richard Ward
testified that by the time he purchased the Rockwell property on April 7, 1983, the fence
was rusting and it weaved in between a couple of the trees. The Uilkemas testified that
there was no fence to the rear of the property when the Rockwells lived there. Jarl
Uilkema testified that he gave Ward permission to install a fence to the rear of Ward's
property to protect his children. Uilkema testified that after Ward moved from the
property in 1987, he took part of the fence down. Plaintiff testified that when he moved
to 89 East Ridge Street in 1987, a wire fence started at a point across by the bay
windows in his house and ran toward the rear to the north. That fence was difficult to
see as it ran within some shrubs and some trees. Plaintiff did not recall how far the
fence went, although it did not attach to the garage.
Although Rockwell and Ward thought they knew where the property line was
between 89 and 85 East Ridge Street, they both testified that they were not sure. Even
plaintiff was not sure where the property line was. With respect to the fence that was to
-9-
99-5481 EQUITY
the north of the house at 89 East Ridge Street and went to the garage, we are not
satisfied that plaintiff and his predecessors in title claimed for a period of twenty-one
years an uncontestable right to a five feet strip of land to the east of that fence.
Since plaintiff has not proven title to the disputed five feet strip of land by
adverse possession, the following decree is entered.
DECREE NISI
AND NOW, this 26' day of December, 2000, IT IS DECREED that
plaintiffs claim by adverse possession to a five feet strip of land on the property of
defendants, IS DISMISSED.
By the
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
William P. Douglas, Esquire
For Plaintiff
John H. Broujos, Esquire
For Defendants
:sea
-10-
CL4fiL?l [J ILI?• : ?
PLAINTIFF
VS
No. 99 - 5481 Equity
T.S. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E.
Uilkema
DEFENDANTS
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of ) , 2001, the attached Motion for
Post Trial Relief is received and directed to be filed. Pursuant to Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure 227.1(2), 227.2, 227.3 and 230.1. Petitioner shall file a
brief with this Judge in support of all issues raised in the post-trial motion not
later than;
2001.
Respondent shall file a reply brief with this Judge not later than;
1:?"'G't< 2001.
Argument on the issues raised in the post-trial motion, shall
be held in Chambers own;
f
?? _r7- 2001, at 7a I o'clock d___M_.
The Plaintiff is permitted to request leave to address substantive issues if
deemed necessary by the court. The court reporter is di ct not to transcribe
the record at this time. /l
By the Co
1 ` O, a Honora le Edgar B. Ba ey, J.
C/ 00/
W
?v y
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
27 W. HIGH ST.
POB 261
CARLISLE PA 17013
TELEPHONE 717-243.1790
WILLIAM P. DOUGLAS. ESQ.
Supreme Court I.D.# 37926
PLAINTIFF
VS
T.S. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E.
Uilkema
No. 99 - 5481 Equity
Plaintiff's Motion for Post Trial Relief
AND NOW, comes the plaintiff, Samuel E. Taylor, by his attorneys,
Douglas, Douglas and Douglas, and hereby respectfully moves:
1. On December 26, 2000, an adjudication and decree nisi was entered
dismissing the plaintiff's claim by way of adverse possession.
2. The plaintiff plead, and in the trial of this matter it was established, that a
garage structure was erected partially upon the property of the defendants in
1950. The plaintiff, in his case-in-chief, proved that the pony stable/garage was
used by all owners in the chain of title, of the plaintiff, since it was moved to its
present location in 1950.
3. In the trial of this matter it was established that the garage structure, and
the foundation upon which it sits have been in the same location ever since.
4. It was established that the garage wall structure extended over the
"property line" a distance ranging from 1.69 feet to 1.83 feet. In addition there
was an overhang and a .58 inch rain gutter attached to the overhang.
5. It was established at trial that a sidewalk was constructed by the
Rockwell's which ran from their house to the garage as is depicted by the Statler-
Brehm survey. Said sidewalk remained at the same location until it was removed
by the plaintiff.
6. It was established at trial that everything to the east of the concrete
retaining wall was maintained by the Rockwell's and the Prescott/Wards.
6. The learned trial judge erred, and the plaintiff takes exception, in not
finding that the garage and sidewalk leading to it satisfied the elements of
adverse possession.
7. The learned trial judge erred, and the plaintiff takes exception, in finding
the plaintiff had failed to prove a case of adverse possession with respect to the
property line being at the location of the pin which was in place and was five feet
from the survey property line. That being the plaintiff had proven that for a
period in excess of twenty one years the plaintiff and predecessors had
maintained the property to a point which was actually a foot further west than
the pin.
8. The learned trial judge erred, and the plaintiff takes exception with the
finding that a fence as depicted in orange on the diagram was not there when
jean Rockwell owned the property. It is the position that a white board fence ran
along the line the entire time she owned the property and it was placed there in
1950. (Rockwell dep. Pgs. 9 through 13)
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Motion for modification
of the decree nisi, and/or the decree nisi be vacated and a new trial granted,
and/or the Court reconsider, rehear and/or permit reagrument.
Respectfully
William P. Doug
Attorney for the
January 5, 2001
I?
u
T
i
i.
-! CJ
•m . xuTx? xoHmxoo ro Iw
WHITTr11 nts"NSf jr, Hf rHCfoefo DOUGLAS. DOUGLAS S DOUGLAS
WITHIN TWIN IY I}0111q Y5 fillM SrH VIff HW OO 1!IllllY CI:II1
off HCOf HN A Ill flli Yl 111 NAY IIT n??!, I?!If v.. n? THIN Iti lriyy rl v MAT III,
w
[NII1110 AIi Al11(I Ypll. Hf THI, (:01!NI COZY
""" OHII?INgI. flLf 11 IN IN THIS
11Y ACIill
.
An moor ^??? i•.? ? ? nm..i vnrnn /? p fly
u ronrn!i? 1 " h'- ?
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
DEFENDANTS 99-5481 EQUITY TERM
AND NOW, this A) _day of January, 2001, IT IS ORDERED that
defendants shall file a brief in chambers in support of their post-trial motion not later
than January 25, 2001. Plaintiff shall file a response brief not later than February 5,
2001. Argument on the issues raised in this post-trial motion shall be held in chambers
on February 7, 2001 at 10:15 a.m.
George F. Douglas, III, Esquire
For Plaintiff
John H. Broujos, Esquire
For Defendants
:sea
la.. t-)
Edgar B. Bayl y, J.
C?
GI-I?-01
I4J
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and : 99-5481 EQUITY TERM
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW this day of January, 2001, upon Motion for Post-Trial Relief, and upon
hearing and argument, it is order and decreed that:
1. Plaintiff is ejected from the five-foot disputed area of property on the eastern boundary of
Defendants' property, in accordance with survey set forth in Exhibit 1 of the trial.
2. Plaintiff is directed to vacate the five foot strip and to remove all underground telephone,
electrical, and other wires; to remove that portion of the garage and overhang encroaching on the
five foot strip, in accordance with the survey in Exhibit 1 of Stadler-Brehm Associates, and, in
the event of any dispute, to obtain and pay for the cost of survey to locate with monuments the
precise location of the five foot strip and boundary line, within a sixty-day period after date of
Order of the Court.
3. Plaintiff is directed to pay for costs incurred and legal fees incurred by Defendants as a
result of these proceedings.
4. Adjudication and Decree are modified to reflect the modifications set forth in the Motion
for Post-Trial Relief.
BY THE COURT:
cc: John H. Broujos, Esquire
George F. Douglas, III, Esquire
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff
VS.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
DEFEND)
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
99-5481 EQUITY TERM
t.NTS' MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF
Defendants T. S. Jarl and Carolyn E.Uilkema through their attorney John H. Broujos, Broujos &
Gilroy, P.C. set forth the following Motion for Post-Trial Relief in accordance with RCP 227.1.
I. JURISDICTION
This is a Motion for Post-Trial Relief filed in accordance with RCP 227.1 (a) (2) & (4).
II. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This is a motion to affirm, modify, and change the decision of the Court of Common Pleas in the
above captioned case rendered in Adjudication and Decree Nisi of December 26, 2000,
dismissing Plaintiff's complaint, attached hereto as Appendix A.
III. RELIEF REQUESTED
Relief requested is as follows:
1. Modification by the Court of the adjudication and decree of December 26, 2000 to grant
Defendants' request for and to direct a decision for ejectment of Plaintiff from the five-foot
disputed area of property on the eastern boundary of Defendants' property, the subject of the
request by Plaintiff for adverse possession and referred to in the Adjudication and Decree Nisi of
Court as a five feet strip.
2. Order of Court directing Plaintiff to vacate his occupation of the five feet strip, directing
removal of all underground telephone and other wires and removal of the portion of the garage
and overhang encroaching on the five feet strip, in accordance with the survey in Exhibit 1 and
testimony presented in the proceedings of this case, within a sixty-day period after date of Order
of the Court.
3. Payment of costs and legal fees incurred by Defendants as requested in Counterclaim.
4. Modification of the Adjudication to correct and clarify provisions made in the Decree
Nisi that may adversely affect Defendants' appeal to the Commonwealth Court, in the event that
such an appeal is filed and heard.
IV. GROUNDS FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF
1. Request for order of ejectment of Plaintiff from five feet strip. Defendants' Answer in
this proceeding set forth a denial of the allegations of Plaintiff's requested relief of adverse
possession and stated affirmatively as a counterclaim that Defendants prayed for ejectment "from
the premises described herein constituting the encroachment and trespass." (paragraph 22)
Paragraph 23 thereof alleges damage and "appropriate relief in damages for trees and plants
removed, disturbance of the land, ... and to recover court costs and legal fees ..." In addition,
Defendants at trial of the proceedings submitted clear and substantial evidence for which relief
was sought.
2. Request for Plaintiff to vacate the five feet strip, removal of all underground telephone
and other wires and removal of the portion of the garage and overhang encroaching on the five
feet strip within a sixty-day period after date of Order of the Court. The ground for this relief, as
with all other reliefs, is the decree of the Court that Plaintiffs claim is dismissed.
3. Request for payment of costs and legal fees incurred by Defendants. Complaint in this
proceeding set forth Defendants' requested relief and testimony supported the claim.
4. Request for modification of the Opinion to correct and clarify provisions made in the
Order that may adversely affect Defendants' appeal to the Commonwealth Court, in the event
that such an appeal is filed and heard. This relief may be important to Defendant to present at
any future argument a lower court adjudication in conformity to the evidence presented during
the trial.
A. Page 2, para. 1, line 5, starting with: "As shown on the survey, the garage
extends..." The interpretation of the drawing, which speaks for itself, and the testimony
adduced indicate that the description of the relative location of the garage should be as
follows: "...extends 1.69 feet in the front and 1.83 feet in the back onto the Uilkemas'
property, and overhangs an additional 1.39 feet for a total encroachment of 3.08 feet in
the front (north or alley side) and 3.22 feet in the back."
B. The location of the garage extension and the overhang are shown and identified in
the survey in Exhibit 1 as a dashed line and arrow and by the outside face of the rain
gutter, confirming the 1.39 dimension.
C. On page 2, para. 2 through the end of the paragraph on page 3: Testimony should
confirm that Defendant Jarl Uilkema did not, in fact, show Plaintiff an iron pin in the
location claimed and, in fact, did not know that the pin existed until the completion of the
Stadler-Brehm plan of survey in early 1998, as supported by the testimony.
D. On page 4, para. 3, line 5. "Prescott" should read "Ward" as the person who had
testified.
E. On page 5, the indented quote should read "sort" instead of "sought".
F. On page 6, the indented quote at line 3 should be "clump" instead of "column".
G. On page 6, para. 2, starting at line 6 with "He..." and the next sentence starting
with "Uilkema..." should be modified as follows:
1) The sentence starting with "He..." should be stricken, since the testimony
will not support this conclusion (confirmed by answer in line 2 of that paragraph:
"No, there was not...").
2). The sentence starting with "Uilkema..." should be augmented so that ...
in 1987, "the fence (that R. Ward built) was partially collapsed and disseminated
and ..."
H. In addition, Defendants' Brief after trial filed September 13, 2000 contained the
following at the end thereof on page 12 request for order of ejectment and other relief as
set forth in Appendix B attached hereto.
V. CONCLUSION
Defendants pray the Honorable Court to grant the post-trial relief requested herein, one
advantage of which will be to relieve Defendants from the task and cost of filing Petitions to
hold Plaintiff in contempt of the final decree in the event Plaintiff does not perform the
compliance actions required,
John Broujos, Esquire #62f
BRO JOS & GILROY, P.C.
Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
717/243-4574 717/766-1690
FAX# 717/243-8227
Date: January 5, 2001
I verify that the statements made in this pleading are true and correct. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to
unworn falsification to authorities.
I
Date: January 5, 2001
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. CIVIL ACTION -LAW
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and : 99-5481 EQUITY TERM
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, John H. Broujos, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Defendants' Motion for Post-Trial Relief on the following person and was hand-
delivered at the following address on January 5, 2001 to:
George F. Douglas III, Esquire
27 W. High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
January 5, 2001
for Defendants
BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 243-4574
(717) 243-8227 FAX
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
PLAINTIFF
V.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA AND
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-5481 EQUITY
IN RE: ADJUDICATION AND DECREE NISI
BEFORE BAYLEY. J.
DECREE NISI
AND NOW, this - day of December, 2000, IT IS DECREED that
plaintiffs claim by adverse possession to a five feet strip of land on the property of
defendants, IS DISMISSED.
By the Court,;
ft
Edgar B. Bayley,
William P. Douglas, Esquire
For Plaintiff
John H. Broujos, Esquire
For Defendants
:saa APPENDIX A
rRUE COPY FROM RECORD
in Testimony whereof, I here unto set my hand
and the seal of said Cou at Cartlsle, Pa.
This j,6_day of /u /I. 1liaJ
Prothonotary
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
PLAINTIFF
V.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA AND
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-5481 EQUITY
IN RE: ADJUDICATION AND DECREE NISI
BEFORE BAYLEY
Bayley, J., December 26, 2000:--
On May 20, 1987, plaintiff, Samuel W. Taylor, purchased a residence from
Richard and Lisa Ward at 89 East Ridge Street, in the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland
County. The property was owned by the Wards from April 7, 1983 to May 20, 1987.
From September 15, 1982 until April 7, 1983, it was owned by James and Wilma
Prescott. From November 24, 1944 to September 15, 1982, it was owned by Robert
and Jean Rockwell.
On July 10, 1977, defendants, T.S. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E. Uilkema,
purchased a residence from Hazel Shover at 85 East Ridge Street. Hazel Shover and
her husband had purchased the property on April 8, 1946. Defendants' property is
immediately to the west of plaintiffs property.
On September 8, 1999, plaintiff instituted this suit in equity against defendants.
In a second amended complaint, plaintiff seeks a decree declaring him the owner by
adverse possession of a five feet strip of defendants' land to the west of plaintiffs
99-5481 EQUITY
property. He also seeks damages for changes that defendants have made to the five
feet strip. The meets and bounds in the deeds into both plaintiff and defendants, as
depicted on a boundary survey of Statler-Brehm Associates, Inc., dated April 23, 1998,
show that the five feet strip is within boundary of the property deeded into the Uilkemas
in 1977. There is a garage at an alley at the rear of plaintiffs property. As shown on
we su vey, the garage extends .58 inches into the Uilkemas' property, and overhangs
into the Uilkemas' property 1.69 feet in the front and 1.83 feet in the back.
Plaintiff testified that when he moved to 89 East Ridge Street in 1987, there was
a five feet hedge in the frontyard to the west of his house. There was a retaining wall
on the west side of the hedge. A wire fence started at a point across from a bay
window in his house and ran north. It was difficult to see the fence that ran within some
shrubs and by some trees. Plaintiff testified that he did not know how far north the
fence went, although it did not attach to the garage. Plaintiff testified that in 1987, he
had a discussion with Jarl Uilkema as to who should trim the hedge. At that time,
Uilkema showed him an iron pin at the base of the hedge, which Uilkema said he
believed was the property line.
Plaintiff testified that he maintained all of the property to the east side of the
fence. A dispute arose with defendants in 1994, as to where the boundary line was
between their properties. The Statler-Brehm showed that the boundary between the
-2-
99-5481 EQUITY
properties was five feet east of the pin that Uilkema had shown to plaintiff in 1987.
The Uilkemas then planted vegetables and flowers within the five feet area. At the rear,
they built a parking area within the five feet area. Later, they removed the old fence,
wall, and hedgerow.'
Plaintiffs predecessor in title, Jean Rockwell, testified that she and her husband
Hu 0 iasau ow cast Ridge Street in 1944. The Weidners lived next door, then later the
Shovers. There was a garage to the rear of the Rockwell property. Rockwell testified
that in 1950, she and her husband moved the garage further west. In 1948, she and
her husband installed a fence between their house and the Shover property. The fence
remained in the same location for the entire time they owned the property. It was
attached to the back of their house and went to a point that was two feet from a
concrete wall to the west. Rockwell believed, although she did not know for sure, that
the wall was the property line between the two properties. The wall was at a sunken
driveway. At the point where the fence was two feet from the wall, it went north to the
back of their property at the edge of the garage. Rockwell testified that she and her
husband maintained the land between the house and the wall. They put a hedge along
the wall from Ridge Street to the rear of their house which they maintained. She
' Statler-Brehm Associates, Inc., did not prepare an actual diagram of its survey
until April 23, 1998.
Plaintiffs house is now rented. Plaintiff was stationed at the United States
Army War College in Carlisle. In the summer of 1997, he moved to a new assignment
in Ohio.
-3-
99-5481 EQUITY
believed that they eventually took the hedge out.
Rockwell was shown a copy of Exhibit Number 1, the Statler-Brehm survey. On
that Exhibit there is an orange line identified as an "existing fence" which runs from the
front, southwest corner of 89 East Ridge Street to a point close to what is identified as
an existing concrete wall. It then runs north, parallel to the concrete wall. The orange
marking ends at a point just beyond and across from the north end of a concrete patio
to the rear of the house. Rockwell testified that this fence as depicted in orange on
Exhibit 1 was not there when she owned the property.
Richard Ward and his wife purchased 89 East Ridge Street from the Prescotts
on April 17, 1983. Ward testified that when he purchased the property the garage was
in disrepair. It was leaning at a forty-five degree angle. He repaired the garage, which
included straightening it up. The garage was kept in the same location. The Uilkemas
lived next door. Prescott testified that:
[t]here was a wire fence running from the garage up close to the front of
the property where there was a green hedge growing. And I don't recall if
the wire fence actually ran up the front yard. But I do know it ran up the r
side. It ran in the backyard up the side, at least to where the house
stopped, if I recall.... It went to the corner of the garage. (Emphasis "
added.)
Referring to Exhibit Number 1, Ward testified that the fence ran from the corner
of the garage:
It came up along the property. There was some trees along here. And it
ran sought of into the trees. And then there was a concrete wall here, and
the fence ran along the concrete wall .... It was right on the wall.
-4-
99-5481 EQUITY
Ward testified that he maintained the land on his side of the fence. He installed
the brick patio shown on Exhibit 1 which is directly to the rear of the house. Ward drew
a blue mark on the Exhibit at the corner of the garage to show where the fence started.
He testified that the fence then went west until it made an approximate ninety-degree
angle to run south. It was "a foot, two feet, it wasn't very much" to the west side of his
garage. Ward testified that between his property and the Ulikemas' property there was
some trees:
[a]nd there was sought of a rusting fence, metal, the thin kind, that ran
between the two properties. And the fence kind of weaves in between a
couple of the trees that were there.
Ward assumed that the fence went along the boundary line between the
properties. He testified that he never moved the fence. He mowed the grass in the
area between the fence and his house and he also trimmed the hedge. Referring to the
concrete wall as shown on Exhibit 1, Ward testified that he believed the hedge ran
along the length of the wall. He was asked if the hedge was on the inside of the wire
fence or on the outside of the wire fence. He stated "I think it kind of ran in the middle
of it." Ward marked Exhibit 1 with a blue dotted line showing the fence running from the
area where the orange marking of an existing fence ends, to the garage at the rear of
the property.
Jarl Uilkema testified and was asked when he moved to the property in 1977,
what was between the two homes. He stated:
There was a retaining wall. There was a hedge that was built
-5-
99-5481 EQUITY
partially along the retaining wall and this is now looking in a northerly
direction. The hedge was probably about, 50, 60 feet long, and then it
term?nated, and if I recall at a couple of column of trees. There was a
Maple tree and then we got to the end of the retaining wall. The end of
the retaining wall is 100 feet from the sidewalk. So it was 40 feet of a few
trees, there was approximately 60 feet of hedge.
Uilkema was asked whether there was any fencing of any kind between the two
properties, and he answered "No, there wasn't." There were no fences between the
properties when the Rockwells lived at 89 East Ridge Street. Uilkema testified that in
early 1983, Rich Ward wanted to build a fence to protect his children. Uilkema testified
that he gave Ward permission to install a fence. He testified that it ran "roughly from
the corner of the garage to the trees that were growing along the retaining wall. He
testified that by the time Ward moved into the property the fence was partially collapsed
and disseminated. Uilkema testified that when Ward moved from the property in 1987,
he took part of the fence down.
The Uilkemas testified that when they moved to 85 East Ridge Street in 1977,
the Rockwells were not living in their house at 89 East Ridge Street, nor did they live in
the house until it was sold to the Prescotts in 1982. Jarl Uilkema testified that in 1977,
he did an unofficial survey of his boundary line and discovered that a portion of the
garage to the rear of 89 East Ridge Street, as well as an overhang on the garage, were
over the boundary of the property at 85 East Ridge Street.
In Palac v. DiSanto, 424 Pa. Super. 277 (1993), the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania stated:
-6-
99-5481 EQUITY
In Pennsylvania, the elements necessary to prove title through
adverse possession were listed in Conneaut Lake Park v. Klingensmith,
362 Pa. 592, 66 A.2d 828, 829 (1949); It has long been the settled rule in
this Commonwealth that one who claims title by adverse possession must
prove that he had actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct,
and hostile possession of the land for twenty-one years. Each of these
elements must exist, otherwise the possession will not confer title.
(Citations omitted).
Recently, the elements of adverse possession have been refined
so as to create a presumption that where "all other elements of adverse
possession have been established, hostility will be implied, regardless of
the subjective state of mind of the trespasser." Tioga Coal v.
Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 519 Pa. 66, 546 A.2d 1, 5 (1988).
In Inn Le'Daerda, Inc. v. Davis, 241 Pa. Super. 150 (1976), the Superior Court
of Pennsylvania stated:
Our courts have long recognized, however, that a boundary line
may be proved by a long-standing fence without proof of a dispute and its
settlement by a compromise. In Dimura v. Williams, [446 Pa. 316 (1972)],
the court noted:
It cannot be disputed that occupation up to a fence on each
side by a party or two parties for more than twenty-one years, each
party claiming the land on his side as his own, gives to each an
incontestable right up to the fence, and equally whether the fence
is precisely on the right line or not. Id. 446 Pa. At 319, 286 A.2d at
372.
In such a situation the parties need not have specifically consented to the
location of the line. Dimura v. Williams, supra 319, 286 A.2d at 371. It
must nevertheless appear that for the requisite twenty-one years a line
was recognized and acquiesced in as a boundary by adjoining
landowners. See Miles v. Pennsylvania Coal Co., 245 Pa. 94, 91 A. 211
(1914); Reiter v. McJunkin, 173 Pa. 82, 33 A. 1012 (1986). As the court in
Reiter noted, "[t]he value of such a fence does not rest upon the acts of
him who alleges its existence merely, but upon its recognition and
maintenance, [sic] by the owners of the farms which it separates, as the
line between." Id. At 85, 33 A. at 1012. Thus, in Omensetter v. Kemper,
6 Pa.Super. 309 (1898), the defendant did not prevail, since although he
established the existence of a fence for some thirty-five years, he failed to
establish its character as a boundary line for the requisite period. With
-7-
99-5481 EQUITY
regard to the fence, this court pointed out.
It does not appear who built or maintained it; whether it was
intended to mark the true line or a consentable line; whether it was
recognized by former owners as indicating the boundary, or
whether [the defendant's wife's] predecessors in title had claimed
and held up to it. It merely calling it a division or line fence by the
defendant and his wife, in their testimony, does not make it one. It
was their duty to supply the jury with facts."
6 Pa.Super. 309, 318 (emphasis added). (Footnotes omitted.)
In Parks v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 301 Pa. 475, the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania stated:
A sporadic use of land, by one without title to it, will not operate to
give him a title, no matter how often repeated.... It is true that residence
is not necessary to make an adverse possession within the statue of
limitation; the possession may be adverse by enclosing and cultivating the
land ... but nothing short of an actual possession, permanently
continued, will take away from the owner the possession which the law
attaches to the legal title; temporary acts on the land, without an intention
to seat and occupy it for residence and cultivation or other permanent use
consistent with the nature of the property, are not the actual possession
required.... Such occupation must be exclusive, and of such a character
as compels the real owner to take notice of the possession of the
disseisor....
In the case sub judice, the evidence of the various witnesses is conflicting. The
nature of the claimed division between the properties of plaintiff and defendants is
different toward the front, to the south, than toward the back, to the north. According to
Jean Rockwell, who owned 89 East Ridge Street from November 21, 1944 to
September 15, 1982, there was no fence of any kind between the properties from the
front at Ridge Street to a point at the rear of her house. Thereafter, apparently some
type of wire fencing was placed within some hedgerow and shrubs and trees in that
-8-
99-5481 EQUITY
area. That fence became deteriorated. The record does not contain the necessary
evidence that for twenty-one years either a fence or a clearly discernable division of five
feet within the land comprising 85 East Ridge Street was maintained from Ridge Street
north to a point across from the rear of the house on 89 East Ridge Street.
Jean Rockwell did testified that in 1948, she and her husband installed a fence
that was attached to the back of their house and went to a point that was two feet from
a concrete wall to the west. The fence then went north toward the back of her property
to the southwest edge of their garage, but not all the way to the alley. Richard Ward
testified that by the time he purchased the Rockwell property on April 7, 1983, the fence
was rusting and it weaved in between a couple of the trees. The Uilkemas testified that
there was no fence to the rear of the property when the Rockwells lived there. Jarl
Uilkema testified that he gave Ward permission to install a fence to the rear of Ward's
property to protect his children. Uilkema testified that after Ward moved from the
property in 1987, he took part of the fence down. Plaintiff testified that when he moved
to 89 East Ridge Street in 1987, a wire fence started at a point across by the bay
windows in his house and ran toward the rear to the north. That fence was difficult to
see as it ran within some shrubs and some trees. Plaintiff did not recall how far the
fence went, although it did not attach to the garage.
Although Rockwell and Ward thought they knew where the property line was
between 89 and 85 East Ridge Street, they both testified that they were not sure. Even
plaintiff was not sure where the property line was. With respect to the fence that was to
-9-
99-5481 EQUITY
the north of the house at 89 East Ridge Street and went to the garage, we are not
satisfied that plaintiff and his predecessors in title claimed for a period of twenty-one
years an uncontestable right to a five feet strip of land to the east of that fence.
Since plaintiff has not proven title to the disputed five feet strip of land by
adverse possession, the following decree is entered.
DECREE NISI
AND NOW, this Z?µ day of December, 2000, IT IS DECREED that
plaintiffs claim by adverse possession to a five feet strip of land on the property of
defendants, IS DISMISSED.
By the
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
William P. Douglas, Esquire
For Plaintiff
John H. Broujos, Esquire
For Defendants
:saa
-10-
DEFENDANT ASKS FOR AN ORDER OF EJECTMENT FROM THE AREA EAST OF
THE BREHM BOUNDARY
Defendant asks the Court to find that there is no adverse possession; that Plaintiff is
denied access or rights to the west of the boundary line in the Brehm survey; that any
improvements or modifications in the 5 foot strip made by Plaintiff shall be removed at M
Apt> Taa-W-PMT 'E `eg C
Plaintiffs cost; that Plaintiff specifically shall move all of the electric line serving the garage
from the premises of Defendants in the strip; that a surveyor shall mark the location of the
boundary line with pins or substantial monuments; that an easement be directed for the
encroachment of the garage and the roof overhang; that the costs thereof shall be borne by
Plaintiff; and that the costs of suit be borne by Plaintiff.
JofmI Hanov Esquire4#62f
4 Nort Hanover r Street
Pennsylvania 17013
717/243-4574 717/766-1690
FAX# 717/243-8227
September 13, 2000
12
}_
?
r.
` ? :
i, ?
,
i
C:?
1
1 SAMUEL E. TAYLOR, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
2
VS. NO. 99-5481 Equity
3
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
4 CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants.
5
6 ORIGINAL
7
8
9 Deposition of: CARRIE C. SHUMAN WIAN
10 Taken by: Defendants
11 Before: Jill L. Roth
Court Reporter-Notary Public
12
13 Date: August 16, 2000, 2:10 p.m.
14 Place: Broujos & Gilroy
4 North Hanover Street
15 Carlisle, Pennsylvania
16
17
18 APPEARANCES:
19 DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
BY: WILLIAM DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
20 FOR - PLAINTIFF
21 BROUJOS & GILROY ;
BY: JOHN H. BROUJOS, ESQUIRE srye
'
22 FO..R - DEFENDANTS ,
J``
r
e
h
23
ALSO PRESENT: 1
24
* Sz
S
T.S. Jarl Uilkema DA, NT
a
,
25
.. EXHIBIT
r°?
'?? ,
?rT{
8.31•o0 y
7
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services rk
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.c8m
r,
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX TO TESTIMONY
WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT
Carrie Wian 3 9 11
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
NO. DESCRIPTION
(None.)
RECROSS
PAGE
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
3
i?
V
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. BROUJOS: This is the time and place for the
deposition of Carrie Wian in the case of Taylor versus
Uilkema to Number 99-5981 Equity.
May we have the usual stipulations for
objections as to form?
MR. DOUGLAS: If you're going to use this for
trial, then we'll put them on record, including all
objections.
MR. BROUJOS: All objections on record.
CARRIE C. SHUMAN WIAN, called as a witness,
being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BROUJOS:
Q. Give your full name and your address, please.
A. Carrie Cecelia Shuman Wian.
Q. How do you spell Carrie?
A. C-a-r-r-i-e.
Q. And your current address?
A. 217 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013.
Q. Did you have occasion to live on Ridge Street at
one time in Carlisle?
A. I did. I moved there back when my youngest
child was six weeks old, which would have been 1965 in
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters9u@aol.COm
4
J
0
1(
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 January.
? Q. When did you leave?
3 A. And we sold the property in 1996 to Mr. and Mrs.
I Biel, B-i-e-1.
S Q. Now, during the time that you were there, did
you live there continuously at that place?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall who your neighbors were, first the
neighbor to the east or to the right facing your house on
Ridge Street?
A. That would have been Mrs. Shover, Mrs. Paul
Shover. And Mr. Shover was living at that time also.
Q. Subsequently did you have occasion to see the
property transferred to the Uilkemas?
A. I just knew it was sold and they moved in.
Q. And did you meet the Uilkemas?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And do you remember approximately when they
moved in, could it have been in the late 170's?
A. Yes, it would have been.
Q. Did you have occasion after they moved in, some
time after they moved in to have any conversations with Mr.
Uilkema concerning a boundary line between your location
and his?
A. Yes, it was discussed. I can't remember after
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
they moved in as to the property line between 75 East Ridge
and the property he had bought, the Shover property.
Q. At that time was it relatively early when he
moved in, within the first weeks or months?
MR. DOUGLAS: When the discussion was held?
BY MR. BROUJOS:
Q. No. That you talked about the boundary line.
As well as you can remember.
A. As well as I can remember it would have been,
because I needed to establish that the stone wall was my
responsibility and the hedge was not my responsibility.
Q. Now, did he or did he not appear to be concerned
about the location of the boundary line, general
identification of it?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Well, the stone wall provided, between our
properties, an excellent boundary line.
Q. Did he seem concerned about knowing where it
was?
A. I guess. He asked to be sure.
Q. Now, do you recall that there was a neighbor on
the other side of Mr. Uilkema when he lived there, Mr. and
Mrs., who have been identified as the Rockwells?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Do you remember that person's name, the
Rockwells own the property on the other side of Mr. and
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
6
7
L
4
c
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Mrs. Uilkema?
A. Jean and Robert Rockwell.
Q. Then the answer is yes you do recall?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any occasion to have much contact
with them?
A. Yes, they were neighbors. And she was also from
Shippensburg and had grown up in Shippensburg. Me and my
aunts --
Q. Now, while they lived there, were you in any
position to observe whether or not they lived in those
premises or did not live in the premises on the corner?
A. They did live there. The boys finished high
school, went off. Bobby went off to Vietnam -- into the
service and came back. And then after the bovs had left
home, her husband had bought a lot of farms, and they
moved. They didn't move out, they left the furniture
there. And they moved to a farm house that was on some of
the property he owned up off the Pine Road within the site
of the Barnitz United Methodist Church.
Q. Did you observe whether they came to the house
after they had moved as you've described it?
A. Yes.
Q. And how frequently did you observe them coming
to the house?
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or court reporters 4u@aol.com
7
c,+?J 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
/D 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. I don't know how frequently, but I know that
they came. And I think they picked up their mail that was
there. I don't know if it was every couple days, that I
don't remember or I would not have observed. I was busy
with a family.
Q. Now, would you say from what you observed
whether they lived there or did not live there in those
premises, other than picking up the mail?
MR. DOUGLAS: Object to the question on the
grounds of relevancy of her opinion with respect to that.
BY MR. BROUJOS:
Q. You can answer the question.
A. No, they did not live there. They did not
occupy the house. Because, I mean, I know that they
didn't.
Q. Would it be correct that you have no knowledge
of the boundary line, personal knowledge of the boundary
line between the Uilkemas and where the Rockwells live?
A. Other than the one I remember Mrs. Shover --
Q. Not what anybody said, but just from your
personal knowledge.
A. Not my personal knowledge, no, only what I was
told.
Q. Now, did you have occasion to know who purchased
the property after the Rockwells?
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
8
y 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. I think Ward, the Prescotts daughter, Lisa.
Q. There's been testimony that James Prescott and
Wilma purchased the property, and then that Richard Ward
and Lisa, the daughter of the Prescotts, lived there. Do
you remember that?
A. Yes, they did live there.
Q. Now, from your observation, at any time did you
see the Rockwells and the Uilkemas in any argument or
dispute or loud words or rancor over a boundary line?
A. Nothing.
Q. Did you at any time observe the Prescotts or the
Wards in any dispute that you could observe or hear or any
discussion or argument with respect to the boundary line?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Do you recall that Samuel Taylor did move on to
those premises at the end of the street where the Wards and
the Prescotts and the Rockwells had owned?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you personally have any observation or
overhear or observe any dispute or fight over any boundary
line?
A. I personally did not
(Discussion held off the record.)
MR. BROUJOS: Cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
9
0
1
2
3
4
BY MR. DOUGLAS:
Q. Just so the record's clear, your house would be
the third house from Bedford Street on Ridge Street. Is
that correct?
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Correct, 75.
Q. And the Uilkema house would be beside yours?
A. On the east side.
Q. Yes. And then further and what would sit along
Bedford Street would be the Rockwell house we discussed?
A. Correct.
Q. If you remember, with respect to the Rockwell
house and the Uilkema house, which used to be the Shover
house, was there a fence between those two yards, if you
recall?
A. I absolutely can't recall anything but a hedge
between the two properties.
Q. Just so we get a feel for the house that you
lived in and the house that was the Shover house and
ultimately the Uilkema house, both of those houses are
designed with basement garages. Is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And your house as you look at it would have an
entrance that would go down the right side of the house and
turn left under your home. Is that correct?
A. Correct.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
10
`} d
1 1.)
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. And when you talk about the stone wall you
talked about, you're talking about the stone wall that
would be the right side of that entrance as you went down
your driveway towards the alley?
A. Correct. It went from the sidewalk back to the
end of the first level, because it was a sloping plot of
ground and it went to that end.
Q. So actually your driveway would go downhill?
A. Correct.
Q. And also the driveway on the Uilkema house, that
would go downhill to a basement also?
A. Correct.
Q. You talked about a residence that the Rockwells
had out off of --
A. Pine Road.
Q. Barnitz Church Lane. And it's my understanding
that there's a small cottage out there at the end of
Barnitz Church Lane. Is that the cottage that you're
talking about that they lived in?
A. I think so. I've not been able to go out and
view the site since this all came up this week.
Q. And with respect to the home on Ridge Street,
you had indicated that all their furniture was still in the
home?
A. A lot of the antiques were. I don't know that
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
11
1 all of the furniture was there, I can't say that. But I
2 kncw I visited her in the cottage. And if I remember
3 correctly, there was a theft of some of the antiques in the
4 Rockwell property. And it was after that I think that they
5 sold the property on Ridge Street.
6 Q. That would be the Ridge Street property?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And you had indicated that you saw Mrs. Rockwell
9 coming and going at times at the Ridge Street property?
10 A. Or her husband.
11 Q. Or her husband. They would continue to receive
12 their mail at that residence?
13 A. They got some mail. Whether it was all of it, I
14 don't know.
15 MR. DOUGLAS: If you have something, go ahead.
16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. BROUJOS:
18 Q. Can you estimate the period of time that they
19 had resided as you said or occupied a cottage at the
20 Barnitz Church area approximately?
21 A. I really can't. I know they were there, I would 1r
22 say, for at least a year. But I really cannot give any
23 accurate time frame. I visited her there. `s
v '
29 Q. How many times did you visit her there?
4
25 A. Just cnce. t,•
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
12
1 Q. And was the home furnished or unfurnished?
2 A. No, it was furnished.
3 Q. Did it appear lived in as a home?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Were there pictures of family and personal
6 things there that a person would have and display?
7 A. That I can't answer. But they were occupying
8 the property.
9 Q. Do you recall what year it was that you would
10 have visited them?
11 A. I really can't. I cannot.
12 MR. BROUJOS: No further questions.
13 MR. DOUGLAS: That's it.
14 (Whereupon, the deposition was concluded at
5:00 p.m.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 i
25
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com`'.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 1
) SS.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND )
I, JILL L. ROTH, a Court Reporter-Notary Public
authorized to administer oaths and take depositions in the
trial of causes, and having an office in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the
testimony of CARRIE C. SHUMAN WIAN.
I further certify that before the taking of said
deposition the witness was duly sworn; that the questions
and answers were taken down stenotype by the said Reporter-
Notary, approved and agreed to, and afterwards reduced to
computer printout under the direction of said Reporter.
I further certify that the proceedings and
evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes
taken by me on the within deposition, and that this copy is
a correct transcript of the same.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto inscribed
my hand this 30th day of August, 2000.
BEMBERL
AND COON COYIEB NOV. 13 200D
D
isolJOUIN
Notary Public
My Commission Expires November 13, 2000.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SAMUEL E. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-5481 Equity
ij
ORIGINALI
Depositions of: JEAN ROCKWELL and RICHARD WARD
Taken by: Plaintiff
Before: Jill L. Roth
Court Reporter-Notary Public
Date: August 16, 2000, 2:10 p.m.
Place: Douglas, Douglas & Douglas
27 West High Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
APPEARANCES:
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
BY: WILLIAM DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
GEORGE F. DOUGLAS,ESQUIRE
FOR - PLAINTIFF
BROUJOS & GILROY
BY: JOHN H. BROUJOS, ESQUIRE
FOR - DEFENDANTS
ALSO PRESENT: PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
T.S. Jarl Uilkema A
?.3?.001 1 \ LK-T
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters9u@aol.com
2
In
*Vw
J
1
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 INDEX TO TESTIMONY
2 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
3 Jean Rockwell 3 16
4 Richard Ward 25 34
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
1 Plan of Boundary Survey 4
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
3
0-
0
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JEAN E. ROCKWELL, called as a witness, being
duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. W. DOUGLAS:
Q. Ma'am, would you state your name for the record,
please.
A. Jean Elizabeth Rockwell.
Q. And your current address.
A. 29 Bentley Place, Carlisle 17013.
Q. And the reason we're here is a matter concerning
a property boundary dispute in a house that you used to
own.
A. Um-hum.
Q. Was there a period of time where you lived on
East Ridge Street?
A. Correct.
Q. And what was the address of that property?
A. 89 East Ridge.
Q. And do you recall when you purchased that
property?
A. 1944. I don't recall the month. But I know it
was 1944.
Q. And who did you buy that property from?
A. Chester Weidner.
Q. There is a deed of record dated November 24th of
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
4
0
f
i
8
9
10
101
1994.
A. That sounds, yes.
Q. When you bought from Chester Weidner, did you
also buy it from Mary Weidner, his wife?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you buy that with?
A. My husband and I, Robert W. Rockwell.
Q. And how long did you own that property?
A. Let's see, almost 40 years.
Q. Ma'am, there is a deed dated September 15th of
1982 which transfers the property from your husband and
yourself to James Prescott, the Third, and Wilma B.
Prescott. Is that who you sold the property to?
A. Yes. So it was over 40 years then.
Q. What I'd like to do is talk to you about some
landmarks that are on the property.
(Discussion held off the record.)
(Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 was marked.)
BY MR. W. DOUGLAS:
Q. I'm showing you what's been marked as
Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1. And at the top of that
exhibit there is an orange box, which is written inside
that box existing garage. When you bought that property
back in 1944, was there a garage on the property?
A. Yes.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
5
0
H
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Was it in that location?
A. No.
Q. Where was the garage when you bought the
property? You describe for me, where was it when you
bought the property?
A. It was a similar location. I can't tell you
footage, but it was at the end of the lot.
Q. Let's put it this way, I'm not making my
question clear. The garage that was on the property when
you bought it, was that the same garage that was on the
property when you sold it?
A. Exactly, yes.
Q. And you didn't replace that building at any
time?
A. No, no.
Q. And, therefore, I assume that the location of
that building never changed?
A. Yes, it did.
MR. BROUJOS: What building?
THE WITNESS: The garage, it did change. It was
moved back, but I don't know the distance that it was
moved.
BY MR. W. DOUGLAS:
Q. Do you know when that was done?
A. I don't know exactly. I think it was probably
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
6
1
n
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1950, because we kept the pony in the garage. And I know
that she was there.
Q. Before it was moved in 1950, was it located
closer to the house?
A. No.
Q. Where was it located?
A. Let's see. It was moved back this way
(indicating). It was moved -- I don't remember if it was
out to the sidewalk or not. As I'm saying, I don't
remember the distance that it was moved back.
MR. BROUJOS: I would ask, because it's a
deposition, indicate when she says it was in the back.
MR. W. DOUGLAS: I'll go through the reference.
BY MR. W. DOUGLAS:
Q. When you say it was moved back, you're
indicating with your finger a movement from Bedford Street
what would be towards Hanover Street. Is that correct?
A. Correct, yes.
Q. Do you recall having the pony in 1950?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that what you use to pinpoint the
approximate time that this was moved?
A. Exactly. I'm doing photographs now, putting
them in albums, and I had them dated, so that's how I know
the exact year.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
7
0
e
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Q
Q. Who owned the house next door to you when you
lived there?
A. Paul and Hazel Shover.
Q. Was there a fence between your house and the
Shover house?
A. Yes.
Q. And who put that fence in?
A. We did.
Q. And about when did you put the fence in?
A. I don't have any idea. Let me think.
Q. Do you know when it was in relationship to the
garage being moved?
A. I think it was after the garage was moved. It
was about 1998, because we put the fence in because we had
a second son, and to keep him in the yard; so it was 198.
Q. The entire time that you owned that property,
this being from the time that the fence was put in now up
until the time you sold it, was that fence always in the
same location?
A. Exactly, yes.
Q. During the entire period of time that you owned
your house, was there ever any boundary dispute that you're
aware of between yourself and your husband and the Shovers
that lived next door?
A. No. Never, never.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
8
9
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Q. Do you know if there were any discussions about
the placement of the fence with the Shovers when that was
done?
A. No, no.
Q. Now, I'm going to talk about what would be the
back of the garage, and that would be the side of the
structure that would be closest to Hanover Street.
A. Um-hum.
Q. With respect to the back of the garage, was
anything kept behind that garage while you lived there?
A. I remember some wood was piled there, like
ranked.
Q. And do you know who piled it there?
A. No, I don't.
Q. With respect to Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1,
also on that exhibit is a concrete sidewalk that has been
highlighted in yellow. Was that sidewalk in that same
location the entire time that you lived there?
A. Yes, um-hum.
Q. Do you know if you put that sidewalk in or was
that there when you moved in?
A. I think we probably did put it in because -- and
I don't know remember that, but I know there was a door
into the garage.
Q. Which the sidewalk would lead to?
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters9u@aol.com
9
rte,
1(
1]
0 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I A. Exactly.
2 Q- Do you know if the placement of that sidewalk
3 was about the same time period as the movement of the
I garage?
5 A. It probably was. I don't know.
Q. Also on that diagram there is a trace line in
orange on the lower portion of the diagram which the
drawing has indicated existing fence. Is that the location
of the fence as you remember it when it was placed by you
folks on the property?
A. Let's see, the end of the house...
MR. W. DOUGLAS: We can go off the record a
second.
(Discussion held off the record.)
BY MR. W. DOUGLAS:
Q. We had a discussion off the record concerning
the reference points on the house. The front of the house,
of course, faced East Ridge Street?
A. Correct.
Q. And the side of the house faced Bedford Street?
A. Right.
Q. The back of the house would face an alleyway
that passes behind the property. Is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. With respect to the fence that you were
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters9u@aol.com
10
+/
E
c
1C
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I discussing earlier, where did that fence start with respect
? to the house itself?
I A. I'm backwards. This is --
Q. Ridge Street is at the bottom and Bedford would
run along the side of the diagram.
A. What was your question, where was the fence?
Okay. The fence was attached to the back of the house and
went over to the -- and it was my understanding that when
we built the fence that it was kept two feet from the line.
Q. The fence that was kept two feet from the line,
did that then run back to the back of the property to the
alleyway?
A. No, it didn't go in back of the garage.
Q. Where did it go to? Where did it end?
A. It went to the edge of the garage.
Q. And as far as that fence going forward, was
there any fence that ran along the side of the house up
towards Ridge Street from the starting point that you just
referenced?
A. Um-hum, yes.
Q. And what kind of fence was that?
A. It was a white board fence.
Q. And was that there or did you folks put it
there?
A. We put it there.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters9u@aol.com
11
114, 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Is that also the one that you placed there about
1950?
A. Correct.
Q. And where did that run in relationship to the
wall for the Shover driveway?
A. You're talking about the Bedford Street side and
the side toward the Shovers. The fence stopped. There was
an entrance into the back of the house, I think two or
three steps, and the fence stopped there with a gate.
MR. BROUJOS: For clarity, if I may interrupt.
It's not clear as to the location of the driveway or the
other references she's making. If she can identify it from
a specific named property in relationship to the alley.
BY MR. W. DOUGLAS:
Q. When you lived on this property, was there a
concrete wall on the Shover property?
A. Correct.
Q. And did that wall line a sunken driveway?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. With respect to that wall, was there any fencing
placed by you folks that ran along that wall?
A. No.
Q. With respect to the maintenance of that strip of
property between the house and the wall we're referencing,
who maintained that property?
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
12
?3
d
c
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. We did.
Q. When I'm talking about the house, I'm talking
about your house --
A. My house.
Q. -- and the wall along the driveway?
A. We maintained it.
Q. When you say you maintained it, what was done on
that property?
A. Mowed the grass.
Q. Was any planting done along that area?
A. Yes, there was some hedge.
Q. And did you folks put the hedge in?
A. Um-hum.
Q. You have to answer yes or no.
A. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes.
Q. And where did that hedge run with respect to the
concrete wall lining the driveway?
A. From Ridge Street, that end of the house, Ridge
Street back to, well, it would be the end of the house.
Q. When you say the end of the house --
A. 89 East Ridge Street.
Q. Did that run along the concrete wall?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know how far back from the concrete wall
it was?
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
13
0
li
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I A. No, I don't know.
2 Q. With respect to that hedge row, did
you folks
3 maintain that hedge row?
4 A. Yes. I think we eventually took that hedge out,
5 but I don't remember when that was.
6 Q. To the best of your knowledge, was any
7 maintenance of any kind done from the concrete driveway
3 wall over towards your house by the Shovers?
3 A. No.
Q. And did you folks maintain that entire strip the
whole time you lived there?
A. Exactly, yes.
Q. The fence that you had talked about that started
at the back of the house and ran towards your house and ran
towards the Shover property and went back to the edge of
the garage, was that there the entire time that you owned
the property?
A. Yes.
(Discussion held off the record.)
BY MR. W. DOUGLAS:
Q. With respect to the maintenance of the garage
itself, what was it built of?
A. Wood. I remember there was a slate roof, I
think.
4. With respect to that structure, would it need to
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
19
0
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
?3
be painted?
A. Yes.
Q. And who would take care of painting that
structure?
A. We did.
Q. The structure itself has an overhang. Did it
always have an overhang when you owned it?
A. Yes, yes.
(Discussion held off the record.)
BY MR. W. DOUGLAS:
Q. For clarity purposes, the stone -- I may have
asked, but I want to make sure that I did. The concrete
wall that lined the driveway that went down to the Shovers
what would be basement/garage.
A. Yes.
Q. That was there when you moved there?
A. Yes, definitely.
Q. Do you have any knowledge of who built the house
next door to yours?
A. Charles Weidner.
Q. Charles Weidner?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Did that individual also own your house?
A. Yes, originally.
Q. On the diagram that's been marked as Plaintiff's
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters9u@aol.com
15
'Vo„«^'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Exhibit 1, there is referenced at the bottom of the diagram
existing iron pin. To the best of your knowledge, did you
folks ever place any iron pin on that property?
A. I don't remember that. I don't remember an iron
pin at all. It could have been there, but I don't
remember.
Q. Would it be fair to say that you folks didn't
put it there. If it was there, it wasn't something that
you put in?
A. No, no, no, we didn't put it there, no. It was
there. I would think that Mr. Weidner when he built his
house next door that he would have had the land surveyed,
and probably that's when the pin was put there.
Q. On this diagram running along that concrete wall
I've marked with an orange line, which is basically
L-shaped, along something that's been written existing
fence, as long as you were there, was there any fence that
ran in that area?
A. No.
Q. The fencq, white picket board fence, that you
had discussed which covered the backyard area, did that
also run along Bedford Street?
A. Correct, yes.
Q. Was that an enclosed area?
A. Yes.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
16
0
10
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. W. DOUGLAS: Cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BROUJOS:
Q. Ma'am, with respect to the fence you just
mentioned, to your knowledge that wasn't necessarily along
the boundary line --
A. No, it was --
Q• -- along Bedford Street?
A. No, no, Bedford Street side.
Q. And you referred to a fence that was also in the
area between your house and the Shover house. Is that
correct?
A. Um-hum.
Q. And was that necessarily put along the boundary
line?
A. It was kept two feet away from the boundary
line. It wasn't on the boundary line, it was kept two feet
toward our ground.
Q. Did you know where the boundary line was
yourself?
A. I didn't built the fence myself. I mean, I
lived there, but I didn't built it, so I wouldn't have
knowledge of that.
Q. Then is it correct you wouldn't know where
exactly the boundary line was then?
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters9u@aol.com
17
10
1 A. No. I was just always assuming that the cement
2 wall was the boundary wall, but I don't know. As I say, I
3 didn' t bu ilt the fence. But I do know that at that time
9 they said you had to keep two feet away from the boundary
5 line, and that is what was done.
6 Q. But you didn't know precisely where the boundary
7 line was yourself?
8 I A. Well, I didn't -- I wasn't involved in building
9 the fence.
10 Q. Now, did you get along with the shovers?
11 A. Wonderful, wonderful neighbors. In fact, we
12 considered each other as family.
13 Q. So with respect to any area there between the
19 two properties, there was no dispute?
15 A. No, none whatsoever.
16 Q. And if the fence or even the sidewalk were on
17 one person's side or the other, nobody made any complaint
18 to the other about it?
19 A. Well, there wouldn't be any reason to make any
20 complaint because we never had to walk on the other
21 person's property. And by the way, excuse me. The
22 Weidners lived there when we bought the 89 East Ridge
23 Street property, then they sold to the Shovers.
29 Q. The Shovers were the later occupants?
25 A. Yes.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters9u@aol.com
18
t 7 1
'1*0e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q. After the Weidners?
A. Correct.
Q. So with respect to the use of that area between
the two of you around the fence and around the sidewalk, if
either one was maintaining that property or doing anything
on that property, the other party didn't make a complaint?
A. No. We never went on each other's property.
So, I mean, there wouldn't be any reason to complain.
Q. And if either party were on the others, they
would be there in effect with permission of their
neighbors --
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
t ' 25
V
MR. W. DOUGLAS: Object to the form of the
question. She's already said it was her understanding she
wasn't on their property. So you're asking her to
speculate about something that she doesn't believe to be
true.
MR. BROUJOS: Objection's made. And I'll repeat
the question.
BY MR. BROUJOS:
Q. With respect to the area between the two
properties where there was a fence and a hedge, can we say
that if one of the other party went on to the other party's
side, that it was with the permission of the other party?
MR. W. DOUGLAS: Objection to the form of the
question.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
19
0
BY MR. BROUJOS:
Q. Would you answer the question now.
A. Well, I don't --
MR. W. DOUGLAS: John, you're asking her to
5 speculate.
f
S
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
V
23
24
25
THE WITNESS: Yes. I don't know why.
MR. BROUJOS: I'm not asking her to speculate.
I think you're confusing her.
MR. W. DOUGLAS: Excuse me, John. Let's make it
very clear on the record, you're asking her a question on
permission. And with respect to your question on
permission, if she is of the belief she was never on the
other person's property, you're asking her to speculate if
that is in fact true.
MR. BROUJOS: I think you should reserve your
argument for the judge. You're attempting to put something
into her mouth. I'm asking a simple question.
BY MR. BROUJOS:
Q. Now, if either party happened to be on the other
party's -- what was considered to be the other party's
property, would that have been with permission of the other
party?
MR. W. DOUGLAS: Object to the question.
MR. BROUJOS: You've done that five times. I'm
asking the question. I have a right to ask it, and you
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
20
n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q. Can you answer that?
A. Well, I don't understand, I mean, why we would
need permission. It was our property and their property,
so we would never have had any reason to go on the other
person's property.
Q. And if either party was on the other party's
land, so to speak, what they thought was their land, there
apparently was no dispute that occurred?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
V]
A. No.
Q. Now, when you look at this Exhibit 1, can you
say where you believe the boundary line to have been
between the two properties?
A. No, I can't do that.
Q. Now, at the beginning I was not clear as to
where this existing garage was located when you first
purchased the property. Can you point out on this map?
A. No, I can't, because as I said before, I don't
remember the exact position of it.
Q. Had it been some place other than where it is
marked out in orange here?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And if this direction is north, would it have
been toward the west toward Bedford Street?
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
21
•;;,,-
0
V
1(
1]
la
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 A. It would have been toward Bedford Street.
2 Q. During the time that the garage was on the
3 property when you occupied the property, was there any
4 period that the garage was not occupied or used?
5 A. No.
S Q. What was it used for?
i A. A car and a pony.
Q. Do you recall whether the Weidners or the
Shovers at any time objected to the final location of the
garage where it had an overlap?
A. No. I don't know what you mean by an overlap.
Q. Well, did you testify earlier that there was an
overhang?
A. Oh, okay.
Q. I used the wrong word. The overhang. The
overhang, there was no objection to that?
A. No, no.
Q. And did you consider that they consented to that
overlap being over there, overhang?
MR. W. DOUGLAS: Object to the form of the
question. You're presuming that she needed their consent
to have it there.
MR. BROUJOS: She can answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Well, it was on our ground, so
there wouldn't have been any reason for anyone to object.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters9u@aol.com
22
r?
y
3
?/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BY MR. BROUJOS:
Q. First of all, was the overhang that you've
described as an overhang, did that go over the boundary
line?
A. I don't know. I don't know.
Q. When you mentioned or said that there was an
overhang, do you mind telling me what you meant by that, so
I'm clear?
A. Well, the roof extends out from the sides of the
garage is what I called an overhang. I'm not a builder, or
I don't know if that's the correct word for it or not. But
I know that normally a roof extends out over the side of a
building.
Q. Did the overhang create any problem between you
and the Shovers?
A. No.
Q. Or Weidners?
A. No.
Q. Did you have a survey made at any time of any of
the boundary lines?
A. Not that I remember.
Q. At any time was there some maintenance along
that boundary line by the Shovers?
A. No.
Q. Did they do any maintenance on their side that
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
23
0
V
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you observed?
A. I don't remember. I don't know if they --
maintenance to what?
Q. You were asked about maintenance, any cutting
the grass or --
A. They mowed their own grass and we mowed our own
grass.
Q. -- or weeding or maintenance of any hedge and so
forth?
A. I don't know. There wasn't any hedge in back of
the garage. I do know that.
Q. Would it be correct that there were no
agreements made between you and the Shovers or the Weidners
concerning any of the boundary line or the position of the
garage?
A. No.
MR. BROUJOS: No further questions.
Just a moment.
(Discussion held off the record.)
BY MR. BROUJOS:
Q. Do you know from your own personal knowledge
where that fence was along the boundary line between the
properties?
A. I know that it was kept two feet from the
boundary line.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800) 863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
24
1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,3
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7 25
V
Q. Is it correct that you were told that it would
be two feet from the boundary line?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't know, as you said, exactly where
the boundary line was?
A. No. As I say, I didn't build the fence, so I
wasn't out.
(Discussion off the record.)
BY MR. BROUJOS;
Q. Where did you live from August of 1976 to the
mid period of 182?
A. Back and forth between Ridge Street and a farm
that we owned, cottage I should say.
Q. Ridge and where? I'm sorry.
A. A cottage.
Q. For what periods of time would the property be
vacant? Were there periods of time when your property at
Bedford Street and Ridge was unoccupied?
A. No, it was always there, and our mail was
delivered there every day.
Q. During what period of time would you not be
there for a length of time?
A. I can't say that.
Q. Did you go there daily?
A. Yes.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
25
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Do you know who planted the dogwood tree next to
the Rockwell house?
A. Yes, Mrs. Sayers.
Q. Mrs...
A. Pop Sayers.
Q. S-a --
A. y-e-r-s.
Q. Do you recall whether there was a building
permit issued for the work of moving the garage?
A. I don't know.
MR. BROUJOS: No further questions.
(Witness excused.)
(Break.)
RICHARD C. WARD, called as a witness, being
duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. W. DOUGLAS:
Q. Sir, would you state your name, please.
A. Richard C. Ward.
Q. Mr. Ward, at any time did you reside at 89 East
Ridge Street?
A. I did, yes.
Q. The deed records indicate that the house was
purchased by James Prescott, the Third, and Wilma P.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or court reporters 4u@aol.com
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
3
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Prescott on September 15, 1982. To the best of your
knowledge, did the Prescotts live in the house?
A. No, they never did.
Q. Who lived in the house when it was purchased?
A. I did and my wife at the time.
Q. And was that Lisa Prescott Ward?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you move in as soon as the property was
purchased?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. And eventually was the property transferred to
yourself and Lisa?
A. Correct.
Q. And courthouse records indicate that that
occurred on April 7th of 1983. Does that comport with your
recollection?
A. I have it right here. I'll take a quick look.
Yep, it agrees.
Q. And it indicates that on May 20th of 1987 that
the property was sold to Samuel W. Taylor. Did you folks
sell the property to Samuel W. Taylor?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. What I want to do is talk to you about some
landmarks on there when you moved there and any that were
added while you lived there.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
27
s:
E
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
`, .. ., 25
V
And what's been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1
there is an orange box. And inside the orange box it
states existing garage. Was there a garage structure on
the property when you moved there?
A. There was a structure there, it was falling
down, but the structure was there.
Q. With respect to that structure, was anything
ever done by you folks with respect to that structure as
far as maintenance?
A. Yes. When we purchased the property, the garage
was leaning I think at a 45 degree angle, and maybe you
remember that. And I don't think there were doors on it
either. No, there were not doors on it. So we had the
garage straightened up and garage doors put on it and
painted. And I think there was some minor roof repairs
done to it. It was a slate roof, if I recall.
Q. With respect to the location of the garage
itself, and when I say the location, now I'm talking about
the footprint of the garage. Was that moved at any time
during the straightening of the structure process?
A. No, I think the cement foundation was already
there, so it was actually just the frame that we were
manipulating.
Q. Other than the awkward angle, it was tilting,
other than it being straightened, was it kept at the same
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-365'7 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
28
e
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
location?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. The property next door to you, this would be the
opposite of your house that you resided in from Bedford
Street, who lived in that house when you lived there?
A. The Uilkemas.
Q. Were there any fences of any kind between your
house and Uilkema house?
A. If my memory serves me correctly, I think there
was a wire fence ran from the garage up close to the front
of the property where there was a green hedge growing. And
I don't recall if the wire fence actually ran up the front
yard. But I do know it ran up the side. It ran in the
backyard up the side, at least to where the house stopped,
if I recall.
Q. You've indicated on the map. First, we'll use
the existing garage as a starting point. Did the fence go
to the existing garage?
A. It went to the corner of the garage.
Q. And did it go behind the garage? When I say
behind the garage, this would be towards the Uilkema
property.
A. No, it did not.
Q. Did it attach to the corner of the garage?
A. Yes.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
29
E
c
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,
`V
I Q. And would that be the corner closest to the
2 Uilkema property?
3 A. It would be this corner right here.
! Q. You're indicating --
A. This is the street out here. This is the alley,
so the fence would have come against that corner there.
Q. And you're indicating in the box that's written
existing garage. It would be the lower left-hand corner of
that box?
A. It would be the corner of the garage, the fence
came to there.
Q. As you read the diagram, that would be the lower
left-hand corner of the box, existing garage?
A. Yes.
Q. From that point, where did the fence go to?
A. It came up along the property. There was some
trees along here. And it ran sort of into the trees. And
then there was a concrete wall here, and the fence ran
along that concrete wall.
Q. When you're talking about the concrete wall, are
you talking about the retaining wall for the entrance to
the basement/garage of the Uilkema property?
A. Yes.
Q. And with respect to that concrete wall, do you
know how far that fence was from that wall?
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
30
E
F
c
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. It was right on the wall.
Q. Was it in the cement or in the soil?
A. No, it was in the soil.
Q. With respect to everything, when I say now
inside the fence, I'm talking about the side of that fence
on which your house sat, did you maintain that property?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. At any time did you change that fence while you
lived there, if you recall?
A. I know we put a fence along this side of the
property, we put a wooden fence.
Q. You're indicating the Bedford Street side of the
property?
A. Yes. And I honestly don't recollect if we
replaced the fence or not on this side, I just don't
remember.
Q- On that diagram --
A. Let's put it this way, if we would have replaced
it -- the fence that was there was wire, rusty, old. If we
had replaced it, I probably would have replaced it with a
green mesh, if I replaced it. I just don't remember.
Q. On that diagram there's indicated a brick patio.
A. Um-hum.
Q. Was that there when you moved there?
A. No, I installed that.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
31
7 ]
t
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 13
pV? 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Discussion held off the record.)
(Break.)
BY MR. W. DOUGLAS:
Q. With respect to the wire fence as you described
it that ran along the concrete retaining wall what was
formerly the Shover driveway then the Uilkema driveway, did
you ever move that fence from its location in either
direction, either closer to your house or further away from
your house?
A. Not to my knowledge, no.
Q. Would the area between that house and your fence
require mowing?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. And did you do that?
A. Yes. I also trimmed the hedge. There's a
hedge, I think from here to here (indicating).
Q. You're indicating there's what is an L-shaped
orange line on that diagram. Are you indicating that the
hedge ran along the length of that?
A. This concrete wall, I believe, there was a green
hedge.
Q. And was that hedge on the inside of the wire
fence or on the outside of the wire fence?
A. I think it kind of ran in the middle of it.
And I'm trying to think back. I'm trying to
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or court reporters4u@aol.com
32
h I
w+'
c
1(
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 look at this map. I do remember the sidewalk. And there
2 are a couple, I think, trees along here, not a lot, but
3 some tress. And the fencing, I believe, kind of ran
1 through those trees. And if I recall, the fence came along
i here and then made a little bit of an L here. I had said
5 originally it came right to the corner of the garage. I
think it came sort of to the corner.
4. Here's a blue to mark what you're discussing.
A. Again, I'm going from memory. I think it came
like this.
I'm getting confused here. The orange is the
garage?
4. And then there's an overhang.
A. That's the overhang?
4. The white space around it is overhang.
A. And there was a little bit of an L here.
4. You're indicating that with a blue pen. Would
you put a circle around that where you just drew?
A. (Complying.) It wasn't deep, maybe two feet
from the garage. And if I recall, I think I had gardens
along here. I think I had flower gardens along here.
4. What has been done with a yellow highlight --
what has been marked as existing concrete sidewalk has been
colored in yellow. Do you recall a sidewalk being there?
A. I do now, yes.
;as
?rf
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters9u@aol.com
33
`D
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. And is that the approximate location of where
the sidewalk ran?
A. I would think so, yes.
Q. And you had made now what would be a blue dotted
line. Would you make that a solid line so we can better
see it?
A. (Complying.)
Q. And you had indicated that the fence ran back to
a location about two feet from the structure of the garage?
A. Approximately. Again, I'm guessing from memory.
Q. Then the fence turned from the length towards
Bedford Street and then went about two feet and connected
to the garage?
A. Something in that neighborhood.
Q. At any time while you lived in the property, was
there ever any property disputes with the neighbor?
A. No, none, none.
Q. Was there ever any discussion of the boundary
between Lhe two properties?
A. None that I ever recall of.
Q. Just so the record's clear, with respect to the
blue line that you drew that now connects to the corner of
the existing garage, orange box, you had indicated that the
fence turned and then went to the garage?
A. Correct.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
39
1 Q. Was that a 90 degree angle, if you recall?
2 A. I would think so.
3 Q. I'm not asking if you measured, but was it
9 approximately a 90 degree angle?
5 A. I would think so.
6 Q. To the best of your knowledge, was any
7 maintenance done -- when I say now, the inside of that
8 fence, and that would be the side which your house
9 occupied -- was any maintenance done on that inside portion
10 of that fence by anybody other than yourselves or somebody
11 you had do the maintenance?
12 A. No. I think I had flower gardens the whole way
13 along the fence.
19 Q. With respect to when I say now the back of the
15 garage, that would be the side of the garage that would
16 face what would be South Hanover Street. If the front of
17 the garage would face Bedford Street and the back of the
18 garage would be in the South Hanover Street, with respect
19 to the back, did you do anything with respect to the back
20 of that garage?
21 A. I maintained it as far as painting it, and maybe
22 occasionally cut weeds down. But that was it, just basic
far
23 maintenance. k,
29 MR. W. DOUGLAS: That's all the questions I r
t *y?.
4
g
25 have.
f
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters9u@aol.com
35
1
Q,
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
k i 25
V
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BROUJOS:
Q. Is it correct, Mr. Ward, that you got along with
your neighbors, Uilkemas?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. And there was no antagonism, no dispute over any
of these points you have mentioned?
A. There was never a dispute over property lines or
fencing.
Q. And he didn't tell you to vacate that area?
A. No.
Q. Now, without looking at this sketch, can you
describe where the boundary line was between the two
properties by any markers or monuments?
A. Digging into my memory, a lot has transpired. I
just remember there were some -- between the two yards
there was some trees, no great big trees, just some
general-sized trees that sort of grow up between fencing
that aren't kept. And there was sort of a rusting fence,
metal, the thin kind, that ran between the two properties.
And the fence kind of weaves in between a couple of the
trees that were there.
Q. But you didn't know necessarily that that fence I
went along any boundary line?
A. No. I assume that it did, but I never verified
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
36
(
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that.
Q. So would it be correct that you never verified
the exact location of the boundary line between the two of
you?
A. No.
Q. And did the Rockwells ever tell you where the
property line was?
A. No. Again, the assumption is there was fencing
there, so you assume that that is the property.
Q. What did you mean that the fence turned? I
heard you use the word turn toward the garage. What did
you state about the nature of the turn of the fence at the
southwest corner?
A. Do you have a piece of paper, I can draw a
picture if that helps.
Here's the garage and this was the side toward
the house, up here's the house. And this is the fence
running along. And when the fence got here -- again,
memory -- it turned in like that.
Q. Are you saying that the fence was how far to the
west or to the Hanover Street side of the garage?
A. You mean this way?
Q. That's correct.
A. Again, memory a foot, two feet; it wasn't very
much.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
37
E
c
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 Q. And your estimate was, you said?
A. Approximately two feet. And, again, I have to
3 emphasize that's memory. I'm not positive.
E Q. Are there any periods of time when that garage
i was not used for any purpose?
A. Well, prior to us purchasing the property it was
not being used.
Q. And your property purchase was by James
Prescott, September 15, 1992?
A. Sounds about right.
Q. And you moved in around that time?
A. Correct.
MR. BROUJOS: 182?
THE WITNESS: Whatever was on the document.
MR. G. DOUGLAS: You said 192. It's '82.
BY MR. BROUJOS:
Q. Now, at that time until when the building was
not being used, the garage not being used?
A. When we purchased the property, we repaired the
garage is one of the first things we did.
Q. How many sides did it have?
A. It had three, back and two sides. The front
doors were gone.
Q. And you said that it was not unoccupied or used
for a period of time?
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
38
f
E
c
1C
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
i 25
A. Prior to us buying it.
Q. Prior to you buying it. Did you have any idea
how long it was not used prior to your buying?
A. No idea.
Q. How did you know that it was in fact not used or
occupied?
A. Because it had like a 45 degree lean to it.
Q. Because of the nature?
A. Right.
Q. And then when did it become useful by you and
used by you for any purpose?
A. I'm guessing we had it repaired in about 30 days
of purchasing the property.
(Discussion held off the record.)
BY MR. BROUJOS:
Q. Is it correct that there's no documents,
writings, agreements between you and the Uilkemas with
respect to any of the subjects you've testified to today
along that boundary?
A. None.
Q. Did you take any pictures of the house or the
garage?
A. Probably did.
Q. Since you were on friendly relations with the
Uilkemas with no disputes, did it really matter between the
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
39
1 two of you who maintained that area along the boundary line
2 either by cutting trees or trimming hedge?
3 A. That's a loaded question. It d idn't matter
4 because it wasn't a dispute. Had it been a dispute, I'm
5 sure I would have been concerned. Because looking at this
6 drawing here, that's a good chunk of that yard. But, no,
7 we had no dispute concerning the property. There was no
8 dispute over who maintained it because the assumption was
9 because of the fence, it was on my side of the property, so
10 I maintained it.
11 MR. BROUJOS: No further questions.
12 MR. W. DOUGLAS: I have nothing further. That's
13 it.
14 (Whereupon, the deposition was concluded at
3:23 p.m.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
s>(
o-.FwT
Syr..
e?}
yF
23
24
25
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters4u@aol.com
90
`%r'1
f
i
8
a
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 1
1 SS.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND 1
I, JILL L. ROTH, a Court Reporter-Notary Public
authorized to administer oaths and take depositions in the
trial of causes, and having an office in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the
testimony of JEAN ROCKWELL and RICHARD WARD.
I further certify that before the taking of said
deposition the witnesses were duly sworn; that the
questions and answers were taken down stenotype by the said
Reporter-Notary, approved and agreed to, and afterwards
reduced to computer printout under the direction of said
Reporter.
I further certify that the proceedings and
evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes
taken by me on the within deposition, and that this copy is
a correct transcript of the same.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto inscribed
my hand this 25th day of August, 2000.
NOTARIAL SE
JILL
CARLISLE 80 01113 UMSERLAND
Notary Public
my commission Expires November 13, 2000.
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
(717)258-3657 or (800)863-3657 or courtreporters9u@aol.com
0
0
0
0
0
r YELL 1
IRON PIN SET S -83050'00"
E 33,00'
CA, L.Gool 0,0
-,?
0.58' i ngnnG DRIVEWAY
[A'Stwa A
RANKING
Inc.
.I
evwwa A"
?OQIlyOE'AGE a RAIN WIN*
AIL :-, J
I I. b. C CRINE CUING
!• N 1[Mf{ l
)
CARiiBLE BOROUGH CW03ERLAND COUNTY, PA p [WISING CM MV SIDEWALK
PLAN OF BOUNDARY SURVEY i
FOR
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR
eem ? C1S6 date 04/27/teee ya,q ,
eMtl by 0.&0. wale I . 10' nD bmN [ 1 '1,
STATLER-BREHM ASSOCIATES, INC.
EN 5
GINEERING ? PLANNING f SURVEYING
b fTAi[ NnNOS, sISR tox 31 NOKTH sEcM Smar
IRA
t 17M I
n x4Y4114 PM (7 b
END(717) r
x17-7701
t[. CLatMaw[ PME '
I .
!
EA. [Erect Posts _
I
6.34
'f w '1
yy I LX IxICNlAtiO' .'' •Y
•. ' [X BWCD PApO ..
'•` •,, UI7PNc cowwr WAG (; ?w O • F.
IOU EMA a O
L • UIL
E-AJILKEMA / N
!./.'042
RIDGE -STREET
.24' ?W
W ,?1
N YNV)
f W
Y O P = ? N
F W I ~
___... ...... _. .rn I` to x M Q
.t ECK ILI O W Q W
Ir Z 3.89' n
;
i
.T
SEE DETAIL
V.
??; u r N,? PDNC.
'5 _0.Q°
[WISINa caNUNIC sgbµNi• \ ' ~ - - .. .. ?T _3-?"-'?
ON PIN SET
?-' •-•-+- ?`EX(SIING IRON PIN
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
i Courthouse Square • Carlisle, PA 17013
Richard J. Pierce
Court Administrator
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
IN RE:
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR
V.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA
The above case is assigned to you for a non jury trial. Please provide me with copies of
your scheduling orders and final disposition date so that I can monitor the case for
statistical purposes.
Phone
(717) 240.6200
(717)697.0371
(717)632.7286
(717) 240.6462 FAX
The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Taryn N. Dixon
Assistant Court Administrator
Taryn N. Dixon, Assistant Court Administrator 77r. (1v
June 8, 2000
5481 Equity 1999
Attachment
MI?,.11-Vww,D~. Ywrn-, MM ?O
IMI IYM. h,• M/w. M
At,L<sJ- ).10.03 - 2z- 6%85 - 03K,
X t Red,
MWDE THE c104
at urLord one thousand nine hundred eighty-Sevday of en (1987) May Jn the year
BETWEEN RICHARD C. WARD and LISA P. WARD, his wife,
of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
hereinafter referred to as
I
i
and SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, single Grantor s,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, hOf Carlisle
ereinafter
referred to as
R'/TNESSETN, that in consideration o Grantee
-------- ------ I _ One Hundred Thousand and No/100-----
paid, the reeri u here- (5100, 000.00) ------------------------
in hand Dollars,
pt wherraI by ark";iedged, the said grantors do hereby grant and eonoty
tothesuidgrantre, his heirs and assigns
ALL
eerectedthatSicertaituatenintract of
SeconddWardhofhthemBorough improvements
Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows:
ON the South by Ridge Street, on the East by South Bedford Street,
on the North by an alley, and on the West by lot of ground of
Charles C. Weidner.
HAVING a frontage of 33 feet on East Ridge Street and extending
back at an even width of 33 feet a distance of 175 feet, more or
less, to the aforesaid alley; and
HAVING thereon erected a two-story frame dwelling house and
outbuildings, known as and numbered 89 East Ridge Street.
BEING the same premises James Prescott III and Wilma B. Prescott,
his wife, by deed dated April 7, 1983 and recorded in the Office
of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County in Deed
666632 PACE M
63,•00 ? Ly.j
i b??% •
1
1
Book "C", Volume 30, Page 987 granted and conveyed unto Richard
C. Ward and Lisa P. Ward, his wife, Grantors herein.
+.?. G. nr..w.M^ ..L.C& 01.L0oL.Ao?... _
M •\ `? Nu.ff of ................
so" DhR. Carob. Ca. P46 Camb. Co., Pa.
If tool ` Etlels Trerfer Tm 1% tool Male Trades To
IIAV?
08 j ..
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
° DEPARTMENT OF 0VFNl1E -
RMUY
I
fAX
RANO:fR 110- 0.0 0
RUM? WA taT10'll
'O COMMONWCALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
• DEPARTMENT OF R,QEVENUE
RIALTY
r IR
ANOffR
ffy? r 9 O O. O O
=Y20161
UX
n R4.iile: C
:'7
'I n
., n
v
? •? RI n
(N "t ?l U
Cz 'r N H
d m
\.,-I I
AND the mid grantors herebycovenant andogree that they
taiU svormnt generally thepropeny hereby conveyed.
BOCKR32 FAU 193
i
IN WITNESS WHEREOF; said grantors ha
yearfirat above writte,
btanea, smith. anb attfaerea
to to Oresence of
set 'hair Aandis and,eda the deyand
State of PENNSYLVANIA
Countyof CUMBERLAND ?N.
On this, the s20./. . '
day of May • 19 87 . before me,
the undersignedof eee,penonaUyappearad Richard C.. Ward, and Lisa P. Ward,
his wife,
known to me (or sotisfa,torily proven) to be the person a wha a nomeg are subscribed to the within
instrument. and acknowledged that fAry executed the samefor thepurposa therein antainrMd11.,11F„
,.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereuntoset my hand and oBicial seat
w11•
KAREN F. BYERS, NotaryPu66a t?j'
4 NoRli Hanover St:"' 6y
Carlisle, Cumberland Cty., PA =rh a/ofj(t!o ; t
My Term Expires March 1S, 1091 !; •; •.ot. •q
1311"
State of 1
County of ) is.
On this. the day of II
.19 , 6rf6rr me
the onder' igned 001 cen to erionagy appeared
known to me (or satufattorRY proven) to be the person wAar
containedro the within instrument.
andarknowledgedthat he executed the samefor thtpurpwes therein subscribed
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I hereunto slimy hand and of cialseat
--' HEAL
11001(I?'132 PAGE 194
Title of Officer.*
e
yi
, n
i
t
i
i
1 •:
'kher hhvrrrlif?fr that prey ereaidmnand rnrnp(eppuat nffre aAdrru
of the rithin namedprantrr is tQeft`. tc tj/?(r 44 1?OI3
Motr, ?19 gT
AlPornry jor ......._.
C
ro
tz
a N
a° F
a
3 F
U
3
°
aa a
s?
i a a (n
F
a•
COMMONWE"f? HOFPEN SYLVANIA
l.l??(t nU r.:
RECORDED on this _ v v day of
A. D. 19-% 34 the Recorder'r o Ice of the said County. in DA4d*pdok
f
VOL age 1 !?, 4
Given under any hand and the said office, date (tfnf.ti,•.?'(i?.r
. Rftorder.
GOOKR32 PAGE 195
r j
1
4. J/qc4.
WiLL4M F. MMII.O". P .C
THIS DEED
MADE the 7 ' day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred eighty-three(1983)
BETWEEN JAMES PRESCOTT III and WILMA B. PRESCOTT, his wife, of the
Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, hereinafter referred to as
Grantors
;
AND RICHARD C. WARD and LISA P. WARP, his wife, of the Borough of
Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, hereinafter referred to as Grantees:
WITNESSETH, that in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand
paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the said Grantors do hereby grant
and convey to the said Grantees, their heirs and assigns:
ALL that certain tract of land with the improvements thereon erected
situate in the Second Ward of the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows:
ON the South by Ridge Street, on the East by South Bedford Street, on the
North by an alley, and on the West by lot of ground of Charles C. Weidner.
HAVING a frontage of 33 feet on East Ridge Street and extending back at
an even width of 33 feet a distance of 175 feet, more or less, to the
aforesaid alley; and
HAVING thereon erected a two-story frame dwelling house and
outbuildings, known as and numbered 89 East Ridge Street.
BEING the same premises Robert W. Rockwell, at ux, by deed dated
September 15, 1982 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in
and for Cumberland County in Dead Book "X", Volume 29, Page 229,
granted and conveyed unto James Prescott Ill and Wilma B. Prescott, his
wife, Grantors heroin.
The within conveyance Is from parents to daughter and husband and Is therefore
tax exempt.
AND the said Grantors hereby covenant and agree that they will warrant
generally the property hereby conveyed.
OOuiGi0 F.C 987
S•3ioo ? tact
i
•1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Grantors have hereunto got their hands and sent;
the day and year first above written.
Signed, Sealed and Delivered
n the Presence of
LS of /? , (3£Ar.1
4m%
Lrf/.0??_ . r-rt- (SEAL)
Wilma B, Prescott
In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. ^14..^,v?.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND I SS,
On this, the 7 94 day of April, 1983, before me, the undersigned officer,
personally appeared James Prescott III and Wilma B. Prescott, known to me (or
satisfactorily proven) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within
Instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same for the purposes therein
contained.
J...^.d JO,.:..
toes
uw onwu
V/ILaIAN I, MabaON, 1.4
I do hereby certify that the precise residence and complete post office address
of the within named Grantees Is ?9 trsQf/p( f r ?qf? 17013
U 7 x1983 ,
or Grantees
alcelele -OF FOCI OFT##
RICIA96A OF all"
APR. • 71983
CYMIMA40 Covert'
Ilhel• evabe
ccu.(4?fz3 7,+,: 988
I
A
P. ?;
.i
1,.....,.
A
IIIII?III!IIIII
• I ? I
.ipu' u)
,i r.-
WU II
?.Y
i
MLLIA. I.
M.Y?IJM I.. C. I?
I
?i
i
MADE the /S4
THIS DEED
day of t?4ONW
In the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred eighty-iwa (1982)
BETWEEN ROBERT W. ROCKWELL and JEAN E. ROCKWELL, his wife, of
Dickinson Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, hereinafter referred to as
Grantors,
AND JAMES PRESCOTT, III and WILMA B. PRESCOTT, his wife, of the Borough
of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, hereinafter referred to as Grantees:
WITNESSETH, that In consideration of the sum of Fifty-eight Thousand
(;58,000.00) Dollars, In hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the
sa`.d Grantors do hereby grant and convey to the said Grantees, their heirs end assigns:
ALL thit certain tract of land with the improvements thereon erected
situate In the Second Ward of the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows:
ON the South by Ridge Street, on the East by South Bedford Street, on the
North by an alley, and on the West by lot of ground of Charles C. Weidner.
HAVING a frontage of 33 feet on East Ridge Street and extending back at
an even width of 33 feet a distance of 175 feet, more or less, to the
aforesaid alley; and
HAVING thereon erected a two-story frame dwelling house and
outbuildings, known as and numbered 89 East Ridge Street.
BEING the same premises which Chester H. Weidner and Marion B.
Weidner, his wife, by deed dated November 24, 1944, and recorded in the
office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County in Deed Book "X",
Volume 12, Page 188; granted and conveyed unto Robert W. Rockwell and
Jean E. Rockwell, his wife, Grantors herein.
IS'i
AND the said Grantors hereby covenant and agree that they will warrant
generally the property hereby conveyed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Grantors have hereunto set their hands and seals
. the day and year first above written.
Signed, Sealed and a ivered
in the Pr ncc f
(SEAL)
W 7/1 obert W. Rockwell)
./ 2j ?.:.f Q' - (SEAL)
E',:'`? J E. Rockwell
&'31.00 4 LKT
1
i
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND i SS.
On this, the /5 yA day of 1 A'+"
V , 1982, before me, the undersigned
officer, personally appeared Robert W. Rockwell and Jean E. Rockwell, known to me
(or satisfactorily proven) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within
instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same for the purposes therein
contained.
In witness whereof, I hereunto set my
i do hereby certify that the precise
..Y,F
wz,,,z
Mu°s
4 W'?
'+au
r
and off//i1'c(el s 41. ; a+'•+ 1614
SANDRA S. ECKENR0g6 : •40 •,?
NOTARY PUBUC-. r ,
CAnUS-LE C
-UM.BERIAND Ccr hC;
w
?.....,..._.
of the within named Grantees Is 210 South Co'hege Street, Carlisle, PA 17015'. •+ V
-ZIt` 15, 198 2
J.or Grantees
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SS.
RECORDED on this ?Jr day of, A.D. 19?y,?`, in the Recorder's office of the said CauntyDeed Book " ',
Volumec,l , Page r'
Given under my hand and the seal of tie se{d otficel-the fdote above
N ,I
written. •t " i
I
Schral Is . fumb. fa., PL
u/. w Yan . 1% Rail' t sWta Trandw Tmt
WIW?Y .bI.C. pAtp/'/5 ' GAAmr ?/r] QO
WM Ca Drat CoLASL /i's
-.. I b??Yn 23 a: 2.3J
Recorder
i
Borough of i
Cumb. Co, Pa,
1.o ir.,n _suts Transfer Tat
t W
.04 -'Amt
??'•'' «:... H f/dom. c,?
,. Y+st. t)ol ASL i/-,z
j
i
t
THE GRANTORS, THEIR HEIRS, EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, SHALL AND WILL WARRANT GENERALLY AND
FOREVER DEFEND THE HEREIN ABOVE DESCRIBED PREMISES, WITH THE HEREDITAMENTS AND APPURTENANCES,
UNTO THE SAID GRANTEES, THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS,AGAINST THE SAID GRANTORS, AND AGAINST EVERY
OTHER PERSON LAWFULLY CLAIMING OR WHO SHALL HEREAFTER CLAIM THE.SAME OR ANY PART THEREOF, EXCEPTING
THE ENCUMBRANCE PRESENTLY THEREON,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SAID GRANTORS HAVE HEREUNTO SET THEIR HANDS AND SEALS THE DAY AND YEAR
FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN.
WITNESS:
MARK GARBER
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA:
SS
WILLIAM R. SCOTT (SEAL)
MARY SCOTT (SEAL)
COU14TY OF CUMBERLAND :
ON THIS, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1944, BEFORE ME , RECORDER OF DEEDS IN AND FOR SAID STATE
E AND O COUNTY II THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICER,yyPppEED?OTHRRSyyOggA? T TYYHNALLpoEYE AggPPEARED WIgg?LLIAM WR. SCOTMTE3gAND MARuYgEER
SCOTT, HIS
THEVITHININSTRUM?NT ,SAND S ACKNOWLE DG EXECUTE, T A O E S E F 0
NR THE5RPOS 3RIRERETN
CONTAINED: 0R TR PUS
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND OFFyCIAL EA L.
L.? KILLIN
RECORDER OF S- CO,, PA,
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE RESIDENCE AND POSTCOFFICEXOFRWITHIN GRANTEEIIS•2516
CARLISLE, PA.
SOUTH HANOVER ST.
MARK GARBER
ATTY.
-
NO:12439 Y -----------
DEED UNITED STATES THIS DEED,
CWW-M3W_6 6 ;MADE THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD
CHESTER W.WEIDNER ET UX INTE.R+ALSEYENUE 'ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FORTY-FOUR.
TO: t 11/24A4 IiBETWEEN CHESTER 19. WEIDNER AND MARION B. WEIDNER, HIS
ROBS, W. ROCKWELL ET UX j DUI:WlENTtRY
CONS:Q1, WIFE. OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
.00 - A14D STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, GRANTORS AND PARTIES OF THE-
LOC: CARLISLE FIRST PART, AND
DAT:NOV.24,1944 I ROBERT W. ROCKWELL AND JEAN E. ROCKWELL, HIS WIFE, OF THE SAID BOROUGH
ENT:NOV.24,1944 ) COUNTY AND STATE, GRANTEES AND PARTIES OF THE SECOND PART,
-X WITNESSETH, THAT IN CONSIDERATION (01.00) IN N PAIL)
RECEIPT WHEREOF JISHEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED; THE SAID GRANTORS DO THE HEREBY
GRANT AND CONVEY TO THE SAID GRANTEES, THEIRHAIVBSASSIGNS,
ALL THAT CERTAIN HOUSE AND LOT OF GROUND SITUATE IN THE SECOND WARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE,
COUOONYTHE SOUTHR13YNRIDGE STREET; ONETHEYEASTIBY SOUTHE BEDFORD DESCRIBED
STREET; ON THE FOLLOWS
NORTH T BY WAN•ALLEY;
AND ON THE WEST BY LOT OF GROUND OF CHARLES C. WEIDNER;
HAVING A FRONTAGE OF 33 FEET ON RIDGE STREET AND EXTENDING BACK AN EVEN WIDTH OF 33 FEET ON
RIDGE STREET AND EXTENDING BACK AN EVEN WIDTH OF 33 FEET A DISTANCE OF 175 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO
THE AFORESAID ALLEY; AND
HAVING THEREON ERECTED A 2-STORY FRAME DWELLING HOUSE AND OUTBUILDINGS; AND
IT BEING THE SAWS PREMISES WHICH CHARLES CLAYTON WEIDNER AND WIFE BY THEIR DEED DATED FEBRUARY'
8, 1943 AND RECORDED IN 12 "w, 541, CONVEYED TO CHESTER W. WEIDNER AND MARION B. WEIDNER, HIS
WIFE, GRANTORS HEREIN.
AND THE SAID GRANTOR WILL WARRANT GENERALLY THE PROPERTY HEREBY CONVEYED
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE GRANTORS HAVE HEREUNTO SET THEIR HANDS AND SEALS THE DAY AND YEAR
FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN.
SIGNED,SEALED AND DELIVERED
IN THE PRESENCE OF CHESTER W. WEIDNER (SEAL)
C. C. PLASTERER MARION B. WEIDNER (SEAL)
KATHLEEN S. SEAVERS
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SS
ON THIS, THE 24 DAY OF NOVEMBER A.D. 1944, BEFORE ME C. C. PLASTERER THE UNDERSIGNED OF'FIC4R' P
PERSONALLY APPEARED CHESTER W. WEIDNER AND MARION B. WEIDNER, HIS WIFE, KNOWN TO ME (OH SATIS7
FACTORILY PROVEN) TO BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAMES ARE SUBSCRIBEQjo- _THyE?,,,WITHIN INSTRUMENT, AND
ACKNOWLEDGED, THAT THEY EXECUTED THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSES •THEtE N. wiNTAINED.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND OFFICIAU;rSEAL.? •?1
C. C.I PLASTERER ?P
MY COMM. E% RES MAY , 1948.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PRECISE RESIDENCES OF THE GRANTEE
, EAST RIDGE ST., CARLISLE,PA,
F. J. TEMPLETON
ATTU. FOR GRANTEES
___-_^-------------- ---------------------
PLAINTIFFS
EXAMIT
x'31.00 ?K7'
PEING THE LARGER PART OF THE SAME TRACT OF LAND WHICH SAMUEL M. MUSSELMAN AND ANNIE
MUSSELMAN, HIS WIFE, BY THEIR DEED DATED SEPTEMBER 3RD, 1919 AND RECORDED IN THE RECORDER'S
OFFICE IN AND FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY IN DEED BOOK U, VOLUME 8, PAGE 468, GRANTED AND CONVEYED
UNTO DAVID E. HARTMAN, AND THE SAID DAVID E. HARTMAN, BEING SO THEREOF SEIZED, DIED ON THE
1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER A. D. 1942, TESTATE, AND BY HIS WILL DATED APRIL 23RD, 1914, DULY PROBATED
AND NOW OF RECORD IN THE REGISTER OF WILLS' OFFICE IN AND FOR CUMBERLAND C U1NTY AFORESAID,
IN WILL BOOK 42, PAGE 434, DEVISED ALL OF HIS ESTATE TO HIS WIFE, LAURA E. HARTMAN, THE GRANTOF
HEREIN.
AND THE SAID GRANTOR, DOES HEREBY COVENANT THAT SHE WILL WARRANT GENERALLY THE PROPERTY
HEREBY CONVEYED.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SAID GRANTOR HAS HEREUNTO SET HER HAND AND :.EAL THE. DAY AND YEAR FIRST
ABOVE WRITTEN,
SIGNED, ;;EALED AND DELIVERED
IN THE PRESENCE OF LAURA E. HARTMAN (SEAL)
GEORGE M. HOUCK
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA )
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND )SS
ON THIS, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1942, BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE
AND COUNTY, PERSONALLY APPEARED LAURA E. HARTMAN KNOWN TO ME ( OR SATISFACTORILY PROVEN) TO
BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT SHE EXE-
CUTED THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSES THEREIN CONTAINED.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I HEREUNTO SET MY HAID.AND NOTARIAL SEAL.
GEORGE TdL.NDVlCK. ! .41 'i.
NO }}iARY PUSLI tr N , .,, ,. t
• MY COMMISSION' EXPIRES
I?i,71RCH 31, 1945 +.12?Y4?2
6.51.00 ?LV-T dscv
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PRECISE RESODENCEOF ETHE WITHIN NAMED G
#1, PENNA. RAIJTEE IS CAW HILL, R. D.
DECEMBER 29, 1942
SAMUEL E. PABEHORE ?-______ -- ATTORNEY FOR GRANTEES. L '
NO 4585 -------- ----
? -------------------------
DEED 0 $6.60 C C W THIS INDENTURE,
CHARLES CLAYTON WEIDNER ET UX C G W MADE THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY IN THE YEAR OF OUR
TO 4: 2/8,/43 LORD ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE
CHE:;TER W. WEIDNER ET UX V (1943)
CONS. $6,000.00 IJ BETWEEN CHARLES CLAYTON WEIDNER AND CLARA G.
LOC. CARLISLE, PA, WEIDNER, HIS WIFE, OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE,
DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1943 , COUNTY OF CLAIBERLAND AND STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
ENT. FEBRUARY 15, 1943 P
B. IDNER, ARTIES OF THE FIRSY-PART, AND CHESTER W, WEIDNER AND MARION.
SECOND PART,; WITNESSETH, THAT THE SAIDEPARTIIESHOF THE FIRST FPATHE $ PARTIES OF THE
RT,SFOR ANDCIN CONSIDERATION OF
THE SUM :.r SIX THOUSAND ($6,000.00) DOLLARS, LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WELL
AND TRULY PAID PY THE SAID PARTIES OF THE SECOND PART TO THE SAID PARTIES OF THE FIRST PART, AT
AND BEFORE THE SEALING AND DELIVERY OF THESE PRESENTS, THE RECEIPT WHEREOF IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED,
HAVE GRANTED, BARGAINED, SOLD, ALIENED, ENFEOFFED, RELEASED, CONVEYED AND CONFIRMED, AND BY THESE
PRESENTS DO GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL, ALIEN, ENFEOFF, RELEASE, CONVEY AND CONFIRM UNTO THE SAID PART14
OF THE SECOND PART, THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS,
ALL THAT CERTAIN LOT OF GROUND SITUATE IN THE SECOND WARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE , COUNTY
OF CUMBERLAND AND STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT;
ON THE SOUTH BY RIDGE STREET; ON THE EAST BY SOUTH BEDFORD STREET; ON THE NORTH BY AN ALLEY
AND ON THE WEST BY OTHER LAND OF THE PARTIES OF THE FIRST PART, HAVING A FRONTAGE OF THIRTY THREE
(33) FEET ON RIDGE STREET AND EXTENDING BACK AN EVEN WIDTH OF THIRTY THREE FEET A DISTANCE OF
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE (175) FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE AFORESAID ALLEY, AND HAVING'THEREON
ERECTED A TWO STORY FRAME HOUSE AND OTHER BUILDINGS.
THE AFORESAID DESCRIBED PREMISES ARE COMPOSED OF ALL OF TRACT NO. 1 AND THE EASTERN EIGHT
(8) FEET OF TRACT NO. 2 AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN DEED OF HARVEY COMP AND CARRIE V. COMP
HIS WIFE, TO CHARLES CLAYTON WEIDNER, ONE OF THE GRANTORS HEREIN, SAID DEED BEARING DATE THE
27TH DAY OF MARCH, 1912 AND ENTERED OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF DEEDS IN AND FOR
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, IN DEED BOOK "V" VOL. 7, PAGE 438
THIS CONVEYANCE IS MADE SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS AS CONTAINED IN THE DEED OF THE SAID
HARVEY COMP AND WIFE TO THE SAID CHARLES CLAYTON WEIDNER.
TOGETHER WITH ALL AND SINGULAR THE TENEMENTS, HETO ITAMENTS AND APPURTENANCES TO THE SAME
BELONGING, OR IN ANYWISE APPERTAINING, AND THE REVERSION AND REVERSIONS, REMAINDER AND REMAINDERS,
RENTS, ISSUES AND PROFITS THEREOF; AND ALSO ALL THE ESTATE, RIGHT, TITLE, INTEREST, PROPERTY, CLAIM
AND DEMIND WHATSOEVER, BOTH IN LAW AND EQUITY, OF THE SAID PARTIES OF THE FIRST PART, OF, IN,
TO OR OUT OF THE SAID PREMISES, AND EVERY PART AND PARCEL THEREOF,
W '' i
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAID PREI'ISES, IVITH ALE AND SINGULAR THE APPURTENMICFS, !INTO
THE SAID PARTIES OF THE. SECOND PMT, THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS, TO AND FOR THE ONLY PROPER IIFF
AND REHOOF OF SAID PARTIES OF THE SECOND PART, THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS FOREVER.
AND THE SAID PARTIES OF THE FIRST PART, FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR HEIRS, EXECUTORS, AND
( ADHINISTPATORS, DO BY THESE PRESENTS, COVENANT, GRANT AND AGREE TO AND I'ITTH THE SAID PARTIES
f OF THE SECOND PART, THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS, THAT THEY, THE SAID PARTIESOF THE FIRST PART, AND
THEIR HEIRS, ALL AND SINGIILAR THE HE.RF.DITAMENTS AND PREHISES HEREIN ABOVE DESCRIBED AND GRANTED
OR P.IENTInvD AND INTENOCD SO TO BE, WITH THE APPIIRTENANCES (INTO THE SAID PARTIES OF THE SECf)115
PART, THEIR HEIRS ANO A.SSICJ!S, AGAINST THE SAID PARTIES OF THE rl P!;T PART AND THEIP HFIRS, AND
AGA114ST ALL AND EVERY nTH,'R PERSON Oil PERSONS, WH(MISOEVER, LAWFULLY CLAIMING OR TO CLAIA9 THE
' SVAHE OR ANY PART THEREOF, SHALL AND WILL BY THESE PRESENTS, WARRA1!T AND I"OREVF.R DEFEND,
I
IN IVITNESS WHEPEOF, THE SAID PARTIES OF THE FIRST PART HAVE HEREUNTO SET TIIEIR HANDS AND
SEALS, THE DAY AND YEAR FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED CHARLES CLAYTON WEIDNER
IN THE PRESENCE OF EIS; CLARA G. %VEIDNER (SEAL)
ROBERT B WEIDNER
RECEIVED ON THE DAY OF THE DATE OF THE WITHIN OR FOREGOING DEED, OF THE ABOVE. NAMED G!'.AttTEE
THE WITHIN CONSIDERATION IN FALL
WITNESS
F. B. SELLERS JR CHARLES C WEIDNER
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA )
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND )SS
ON THIS STH DAY OF FEBRUARY A. D, 1943 BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, IN AND FOR SAID Cn'INTY
AND STATE, PERSONALLY CAME THE ABOVE NAHED CHARLES CLAYTON 'SEIONER A'TO C,LARA G. '.IE.IDNER, !:IS
WIFE, AND ACKNOIVLEDGED THE FOREGOING DEED TO BE THEIR ACT AND DEED, AIIU OESI??FD THE SALE TO DE
RECORDED AS SUCH.
VIITNF5S MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL THE DAY ANO•YEAR•AFOF S,II O.
R?TR iA- GRt1DER
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY CnMMI ON EXP ES MARCH 5, 1945
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE RESIDENCE AND POST 0 OF WITHIN GRAJ'+TEE IS CARLISLE, PA.
F. G. SELLERS JR
ATTY.
------------------------ ?_________________
_____________________________________________________
NO 1,587 4 TI!1. INDENTURE.,
DEED 4'55.50 H R H MAIIE THE 29TFI DAY OF JANIIARY, IN THE Y!:.IR OF Ol;°. `D
.
' i H. FAYPAL:i iiACEE ET (J;< 4 T T "+ H ONE TN4115ANp NINE HUNDRED D rII:D FORTY THREE.
1/29/43
TO 'I BETVIEEN H, RAYMOND HAREE AND THOMAZIN T. IIAGEE, HI "I FE,
SAI!UEL 0 EFL ORD ET UX OF THE VILLAGE OF WHITFORD, COUNTY OF CHESTER. AND STATE
DONS, $1.00 4 OF PENNSYLVANIA, PARTIES .OF THE FIRST PART, AND
LOC. HWPOEN TWP 4 SAIAUEL 0. ERFORD AND FLORENCE 1. ERFORD, HIS '.VIFE, OF THE TOM1SHIP OF
I DATED JANUARY 29, 1943 4 EAST PENNSBORO, COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND AND STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
ENT FEBRUARY 15, 1943 4 P„RTIES OF THE SECOND PART, WITNESSETH THAT THE SAID PARTIES OF THE
------------------------C FIRST PART, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SUM OF ONE ($1.00) DOLLAR
AND OTHER GOOD AND VAL!LIJ:LE CONSIDERATION, LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, "@LL
AND TRULY PAID E!Y THE SAID PARTIES )F THE SECOND PART TO THC SAID PAI?TIES OF THE SECOND PART
TO THE SAID PARTIES OF THE FIRST PART, AT AND BEFORE THE SEAI.ING AND DELIVERY OF THESE PRE-ENTS,
THE RECEIPT WHEREOF 15 HEREBY AC KNOVIL EDGED, HAVE GRAI:TED, BARGAINED, SOLD, ALIENED, Ef`rE01-7(5,
RELEASED, COMVEYED, AND CONFIRMED AND BY THESE PRESENTS 00 GRAt!T, UARGA!"!, SELL, ALIC., E!.FEOFF,
RELEASE, CONVEY AND CONFIRM UNTO, THE SAID PARTIES OF THE SECOND PART TIIEIR HEIRS AND ASST :}!S,
ALL THAT CERTAIN PIECE 01`, PARCFL OF LAN) SITUATE IN THE TOVVF)41P OF HA'.PDCN, CnIINTY nl' Cu'• !!-
LAND AND !•T;,TF- OF PENNSYLVANIA, R"UNDED AIID DECCRIBED „S FCLI-0"15, TO '';IT;
FEG1.`:'iIPP: AT A -;OI';T IN THL CENTER OF THE IIARRV+UnG AI'i0 (.HA.^6'i.R ;I'I I!tG TI'RN1'IKE AT t;:':" "P.
OF LAN`9 OF trM DALE rILALS; THENCE BY SAID TURNPIKE S,1UTH EIGI-T', !IIPIE (09) CEt',REES FORTY :-I VE
(45) t.Ii IJUTES EA!,T TI'F'.EK IWNORED FIFT" ONE (351) FEET TO A POINT It: SIID TIIRIIPIKE; Ti "'.CF "C:'. TH
TWO (2) DEGREES FIFTEEN'(15) MINUTES 19EST THREE HUNDRED TEN ArJD FIVE TENT'15 (310.5) FEET T" AN
IRON PIN AT CORNER OF LAUDS OF 0, W. KNUPP; THENCE BY SAID LANDS OF D. IV. KNIJPP NORTH FIFT" TWO
(52) DEGRE S THIRTY (30) MINUTES IVEST TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO AND FIFTEEN ONE. HJNDREDTHC (282.15)
FEET TO A POST AT CORNER OF LANDS OF IRA DALE MEALS AFORESAID; THLNCC BY SAID LANDS OF IRA DALE
MEALS SOUTH FIFTY NINE (59) DEGREES 'HEST FORTY FIVE (45) FEET TO A COIIC-ETE MONUMENT; THENCE BY
LANDS OF SANE SOUTH NINE (9) DEGREES THIRTY (30) MINUTES WEST F^IIR CWtVIOINW 41"cAiffWrlBYWAlXA }SS
County of CUMBERLAND
1 Robert P. Ziegler, Recorder, do hereby
Curtify that the foregoing is a true and
co=Vol. as a are In
Paps sEyl
i Hess my hen official sJ? 1hi
aY 01. 'i2" b,
ecordarol weds " 4117
My Commission Expires, l et Monday,
January 2002
AREAS ??iklED
19
LpEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT
"EXIT--RTOGG TREE-
SHOWS %%E-F. polNT5 1=oR
PIH o7Ur-QA PH S
¢P17ilT MZMFJ-aLD.Ay
REDRAT71CrB`7::. -:r171[K.CkT.?yf2s fzeoo
BASES LPOLf. °, (?U1.1 of BeUNDACr <-
.SuRVEY'"F6
L?8E7w4Sall.BY. SrAbESIZ pp
0
C&neu:4I23IVB. 'SdAkt 1-.10
...
,.
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
PLAINTIFF
V.
T.S, JARL UILKEMA AND
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-5481 EQUITY
AND NOW, this LV day of April, 2001, IT IS DECREED:
(1) At the northern end of the western boundary line of the property of plaintiff
Samuel W. Taylor known as 89 East Ridge Street, which is the eastern boundary line
of the property of T.S. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E. Uilkema known as 85 East Ridge
Street, which boundary line is north 05 degrees 42 seconds 30 minutes east, 175 feet,
plaintiff has by adverse possession title for the encroachment of the west side of his
garage into defendants' property which is 1.69 feet at the northern corner of the west
wall, and 1.83 feet at the southern corner of the west wall, with an additional overhang
of the roof over the west wall of 1.39 feet, and an additional overhang of the gutter on
the roof over the west wall of .58 inches.
(2) Plaintiffs claim by adverse possession of the remainder of a five feet strip of
land on defendants' property immediately to the west of plaintiffs western boundary
line, IS DISMISSED.
99-5481 EQUITY
By the Court,
Edgar B. Bayley,
William P. Douglas, Esquire
For Plaintiff
John H. Broujos, Esquire
For Defendants
:sea
J
April 18, 2001, Final Decree Nisi entered.
Prothonotary
c
I
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR,
PLAINTIFF
V.
T.S. JARL UILKEMA AND
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
DEFENDANTS
Bayley, J., April 18,2001:--
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-5481 EQUITY
On December 26, 2000, following an adjudication, a decree nisi was entered in
which plaintiffs claim by adverse possession of a five feet strip of land on the property
of defendants to the immediate west of plaintiffs property line was dismissed. Plaintiff
and defendants filed post-trial motions, which have been briefed and argued. The
opinion filed in support of the decree nisi is incorporated herein and made a part of this
opinion.
Plaintiff, Samuel W. Taylor, maintains that it was error not to find that he owns by
adverse possession the property on which the west wall and roof overhang and gutter
of his garage encroaches into the property of defendants, T.S. Jarl Uilkema and
Carolyn E. Uilkema. The evidence shows that the west wall of plaintiffs garage at the
north end where it meets an alley at the rear of his property encroaches 1.69 feet into
defendants' property. The west wall where it meets the south side of the garage facing
plaintiff's house encroaches 1.83 feet into defendants' property. The overhang of the-
99-5481 EQUITY
roof over the west wall encroaches another 1.39 feet into defendants' property, and a
gutter on the roof encroaches another.58 inches beyond that.' The garage was on the
property of plaintiffs predecessor in title, Robert and Jean Rockwell, when they moved
there on November 24, 1944. Jean Rockwell testified that in 1950, she and her
husband moved the garage farther west toward the property of Hazel Shover,
defendants' predecessor in title. The evidence shows that the location of the garage
has not changed since that time. Jarl Uilkema testified that in 1977 when he and his
wife moved into his property at 85 East Ridge Street, he did an unofficial survey of his
eastern boundary line and discovered that a part of the garage to the rear of what is
now plaintiffs property at 89 East Ridge Street, as well as an overhang of the garage,
were over the boundary of his property. We agree with plaintiff that he has proven title
by adverse possession of the encroachment of his garage into defendants' property by
actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct, and hostile possession for well
over twenty-one years. See Palac v. DISanto, 424 Pa. Super. 277 (1993).
Plaintiff further maintains it was error not to find that he owns by adverse
possession that part of defendants' property on which part of a sidewalk encroached
which ran from the rear of his house to his garage. The entire sidewalk is marked in
' The garage is marked in orange on Plaintiffs Exhibit 1, attached hereto, of a survey by
Statler-Brehm Associates, Inc., dated April 23, 1998. In describing the encroachment
of the garage into defendants' property on page 2 of the opinion filed in support of the
decree nisi, we incorrectly identified it as follows: "[t]he garage extends .58 inches into
the Uilkemas' property, and overhangs into the Uilkemas' property 1.69 feet in the front
and 1.83 feet in the back."
-2-
99-5481 EQUITY
yellow on the Statler-Brehm Associates survey. The survey shows a part of the
sidewalk is west of the boundary line dividing plaintiffs and defendants' property as it
runs toward the garage? The width of the encroachment decreases gradually until it
ends at a point before the sidewalk reaches the garage. The survey does not depict
any measurements at any point of the amount of encroachment of the sidewalk into
defendants' property. Jean Rockwell, plaintiffs predecessor in title from 1944 until
1982, testified:
Q. With respect to Plaintiffs Exhibit Number 1, also on that
exhibit is a concrete sidewalk that has been highlighted in yellow. Was
that sidewalk in that same location the entire time that you lived there?
A. Yes, um-hum.
Q. Do you know if you put that sidewalk in or was that there
when you moved in?
A. I think we probably did put it in because - and I don't know
remember that, but I know there was a door into the garage.
Q. Which the sidewalk would lead to?
A. Exactly.
Q. Do you know if the placement of that sidewalk was about the
same time period as the movement of the garage?
A. It probably was. I don't know.
Richard Ward, plaintiffs immediate predecessor in title from 1983 until 1987,
testified:
Q. What has been done with a yellow highlight-what has been
marked as existing concrete sidewalk has been colored in yellow. Do you
recall a sidewalk being there?
A. I do now, yes.
Q. And is that the approximate location of where the sidewalk
ran?
' The boundary line in the deeds into plaintiff and defendants from their immediate
predecessors in title, is N 05 degrees 42 seconds 30 minutes east, 175 feet.
-3-
99-5481 EQUITY
A. I would think so, yes.
Plaintiff, Samuel Taylor, testified that he removed the sidewalk sometime after he
purchased his property in 1987. A small part of the sidewalk did encroach Into
defendants' property for a continuous period of over twenty-one years. However, the
width of that decreasing encroachment as the sidewalk ran from an area west of a brick
patio toward plaintiffs garage is not measured. The encroachment was de minimis and
can no longer be measured because plaintiff had the sidewalk removed. On these
facts we are unable and unwilling to grant plaintiff relief.'
Plaintiff otherwise maintains that the court erred by not finding that he owns by
adverse possession a five feet strip of land on the property of defendants to the
immediate west of his property line. For the reasons set forth in the opinion in support
of the decree nisi, we properly rejected this claim. Defendants seek post-trial reilef In
the form of an order prohibiting plaintiff from using the five feet strip that was in dispute.
This final decree resolves the parties' dispute. No further order is warranted.
AND NOW, this Vi day of April, 2001, IT IS DECREED:
(1) At the northern end of the western boundary line of the property of plaintiff
Samuel W. Taylor known as 89 East Ridge Street, which is the eastern boundary line
3 Richard Ward testified that he constructed the patio to the rear of what is now
plaintiffs house. A small part of the patio also encroached onto defendants' property,
Defendants removed that encroachment which did not exist for 21 years.
-4-
99-5481 EQUITY
of the property of T.S. Jarl Uilkema and Carolyn E. Uilkema known as 85 East Ridge
Street, which boundary line is north 05 degrees 42 seconds 30 minutes east, 175 feet,
plaintiff has by adverse possession title for the encroachment of the west side of his
garage into defendants' property which is 1.69 feet at the northern corner of the west
wall, and 1.83 feet at the southern corner of the west wall, with an additional overhang
of the roof over the west wall of 1.39 feet, and an additional overhang of the gutter on
the roof over the west wall of .58 inches.
(2) Plaintiffs claim by adverse possession of the remainder of a five feet strip of
land on defendants' property immediately to the west of plaintiffs western boundary
line, IS DISMISSED.
By the
Edgar B.
William P. Douglas, Esquire
For Plaintiff
John H. Broujos, Esquire
For Defendants
:saa
-5-
_ ---• RON PIN SET S 83'50'00" E 33,00'
Ir..al rau .-
71
7?.?v
4vp
? III ul. I
111
?
mlwl .ll > . wrm
IM
Y' r-?r ri.iu .
I
CARED= BOROUGH CUHBBRU" COMP, PA
PLAN OF BOUNDARY SURVEY
FOR
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR
,... Y" e+n rlF a na ?. ? 1
aua. r u-a-ma w / m
""'
IW PSF eY.l ?, Ns,M
STATLER-BREHM ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERING ? PLANNING ? SURVEYING
u atoa M91R nal[ Im al RoRel > n
M In f Fllii ® rl! (7'm 'Q' IINI
77o OIU au-m,
t?, J'II lam; I I I I
VC 'HOUSE
RL' VILICEMA
E.: UILKEMA
/. 042
RIDGE.STREET
N [InMNp rYl
N rIW rwn..? .
I 11 Mhl YIM
_ N IYI rrM?
p M
5EE DETAIL I
In+a rwuln w..,.
I
W ? m ?
?
' WVQ
ul?
F^
K
,. '. z s ec JJJIIIIII
c+u -
•I
.e.l,
ON SET
NG IRON PIN
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and 99-5481 EQUITY TERM
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter judgment on Final Decree dated April 18, 2001 in the above case.
June 19,2001
c: William P. Douglas, Esquire for Plaintiff
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
717/243-4574; 717/766-1690
FAX 717/243-8227
Attorney I.D. No. 06268
a
4
C; o U
SAMUEL W. TAYLOR, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. CIVIL ACTION -LAW
T.S. JARL UILKEMA and
CAROLYN E. UILKEMA,
Defendants
99-5481 EQUITY TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, John H. Broujos, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Praecipe to Enter Judgment on Final Decree on the following person and at the
following address by U.S. First Class Mail on June 19, 2001 to:
William P. Douglas
27 W. High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
June 19, 2001
iroujos, Esquire
for Defendants
BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 243-4574
(717) 243-8227 FAX
i? r.
;r:
?: _? }
?::,
„ !?;?
_ 'J
?
'? .: ?
q
v ???1