Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-6135 FAITH CHURCH OF GOD, INC., Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT LISA M. STROHECKER, Defendant 2015-06135 CIVIL ACTION IN RE: NONJURY TRIAL OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT PLACEY, C.P.J., 16 MAY 2018 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Trespass against Defendant on November 6, 2015. Plaintiff requests Defendant be ordered to cease any existing and continuous trespass from the land described in the title to their property. Defendant filed an Answer with a Counterclaim, advancing numerous affirmative defenses and Action to Quiet Title. Defendant avers the doctrines of consentable boundary line and adverse possession are applicable. Plaintiff claims Defendant has not met the requirements for adverse possession and that the consentable boundary line doctrine is inapplicable. Plaintiff filed Motion for Summary Judgment, oral argument was held, and the Motion was subsequently denied. A nonjury trial was held on January 11, 2018, and at the conclusion of testimony, the parties were granted an additional thirty days to file supplemental memoranda of law. This Opinion is in support of the judgment that grants quiet title in favor of Defendant. 2015-06135 CIVIL ACTION SUMMARY OF FACTS On or about February 24, 1975, the United Pentecostal Church of the West Shore purchased real property located at 101 South Frederick Street, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania (henceforth Church Property). The Church Property was sold to the Harrisburg Korean Mission Church in September 2002, then subsequently sold to Terrence F. Doyle in March 2009, and finally, sold to Plaintiff on April 1, 2009. The metes and bounds legal description of the Church Property has remained unchanged throughout this recorded chain of title. On or about December 10, 1976, Asa M. Zook and spouse Shirley C. Zook purchased real property located at 43 West Locust Street, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania (henceforth Zook Property). The title for the Zook Property vested solely in Asa M. Zook upon the death of Shirley Zook in 2007, and on November 24, 2010, Zook conveyed one half of his interest in the Zook Property to his Daughter, Lisa Strohecker (Defendant). After Asa Zook’s death, the Estate of Asa M. Zook conveyed the entire Zook Property by recorded deed to Defendant, on September 24, 2015. The Zook and Church properties are adjacent to each other. In April 1987, Asa Zook installed a chain link fence between the Zook Property and the Church Property; the fence encroaches several feet onto the Church Property (henceforth Disputed Area). The structure and location of the fence have remained unchanged throughout the parties’ respective chain of title, although its construction did not reflect the boundary established by the metes and bounds descriptions of either party’s deed. It is unmistakable that by installing the fence, the Zooks took exclusive possession of the Disputed Area, the land east of the fence line to the Zook Property. 2 2015-06135 CIVIL ACTION The Zooks used the Disputed Area as their own by installing a swing set, table and chairs, a tree, and a garden. It is further undisputed that the Zooks mowed, raked, and otherwise maintained the Disputed Area continuously since 1987, without a cessation. Mr. Zook’s intent toward the Church Property by the installation of the fence is unclear. DISCUSSION Statement of Law. – In Pennsylvania, adverse possession of real property is established by adverse, open, continuous, notorious, and uninterrupted use of land for a period of 21 years. Baylor v. Soska, 658 A.2d 743, 744 (Pa. 1995). There is also a requirement for hostility in an adverse possession claim, which does not denote ill will, but rather, the intent to hold the property against the record title holder. Zeglin v. Gahagen, 812 A.2d 558, 562 (Pa. 2002). Under certain circumstances, adverse possessors may fulfill the 21-year requirement via tacking. In the context of adverse possession, tacking is when, “under certain circumstances, the periods of possession of prior owners may be added on to the period of possession of the present owners.” Baylor, 658 A.2d at 744-45. Additionally, adverse possession requires specific conveyance by deed and a heightened standard of privity because there must be sufficient notice given before established possessory rights are extinguished. See Philadelphia Electric Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 154 A. 492, 494 (Pa. 1931) (title acquired by adverse possession extinguishes all prior claims). “For our purposes, ‘privity’ refers to a succession of relationship to the same thing, whether created by deed or other acts or by operation of law.” Baylor, 658 A.2d at 745. 3 2015-06135 CIVIL ACTION Under the doctrine of consentable boundary lines, if adjoining landowners occupy their respective premises up to a certain line, which they mutually recognize and agree to for the period of time prescribed by the statute of limitations, they are precluded from claiming that the boundary line thus recognized and acquiesced in is not the true one. See Adams v. Tamaqua Underwear Co., 161 A. 416 (Pa. Super. 1932). Furthermore, “Pennsylvania courts have adopted the view that succeeding owners of property are bound by the fences that were accepted and recognized by former owners even without any other privity or formal transfer of the area possessed adversely.” Zeglin, 812 A.2d at 560. In such situations, the parties need not have specifically consented to the location of the line. Inn Le’Daerda, Inc. v. Davis, 360 A.2d 209, 215 (Pa. Super. 1976). “It must nevertheless appear that for the requisite twenty-one years a line was recognized and acquiesced in as a boundary by adjoining landowners.” Id. 360 A.2d at 215-16. Although property cases are by nature fact-bound, for purposes of tacking rights, the finder of fact should consider the totality of the circumstances and the context in which a predecessor’s prior use and interests are conveyed to its successor because “\[t\]here must be no secret that the adverse possessor is asserting a claim to the land in question.” Zeglin, 812 A.2d at 565 (quoting Baylor, 658 A.2d at 745). Application of Law to Facts. – The history of property rights in Pennsylvania is utilitarian and favors productive use of property. We reward adverse possessors who put land to productive use for the statutory period, and extinguish the rights of landowners who sit on their rights and take no action when they see adverse use of their land. Instantly, Defendant has established an ownership title with clear and 4 2015-06135 CIVIL ACTION convincing evidence that prior and subsequent adjoining landowners occupied their respective premises, up to the fence line – despite having alternate boundaries described by the metes and bounds descriptions – openly, notoriously and without interruption for the period of time prescribed by the statute of limitations. Whether this possession was hostile by intent from the prior owners or simply due to their ignorance 1 or mistake shall remain unanswered for the adverse possession claim. Under the consentable boundary line doctrine, this case presents a fence line that is unquestionably visible, there has been demonstrable evidence of unequivocal acts of ownership, and the substantial boundary marker has existed for more than the period set forth in the statute of limitations. By recognition and acquiescence, Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest relinquished claim to the Disputed Area in 2008, and thus, Plaintiff is precluded from now claiming the fence line is not the true boundary. ORDER th AND NOW, this 16 of May 2018, upon consideration of Defendant is GRANTED Quiet Title to the subject property; specifically, title to all that portion of the subject property that is east of the fence that divides the subject property from the Defendant’s property is GRANTED to Defendant. By the Court, ________________________ Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. 1 Mistake, however, does not in and of itself negate application of adverse possession in Pennsylvania. See Schlagel v. Lombardi, 486 A.2d 491, 494 (Pa. Super. 1984). “The modern trend and the better rule is that where the visible boundaries have existed for the period set forth in the Statute of Limitations, title will vest in the adverse possessor where there is evidence of unequivocal acts of ownership. In this view it is immaterial that the holder supposed the visible boundary to be correct or, in other words, the fact that the possession was due to inadvertence, ignorance, or mistake, is entirely immaterial.” Tamburo v. Miller, 203 Md. 329, 100 A.2d 818, 821 (1953). If pressed, this would be the position taken on the adverse possession claim. 5 2015-06135 CIVIL ACTION Distribution: Peter J. Russo, Esq. Kevin J. Hall, Esq. 6 FAITH CHURCH OF GOD, INC., Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT LISA M. STROHECKER, Defendant 2015-06135 CIVIL ACTION IN RE: NONJURY TRIAL ORDER th AND NOW, this 16 of May 2018, upon consideration of Defendant is GRANTED Quiet Title to the subject property; specifically, title to all that portion of the subject property that is east of the fence that divides the subject property from the Defendant’s property is GRANTED to Defendant. By the Court, ________________________ Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. Distribution: Peter J. Russo, Esq. Kevin L. Hall, Esq.