Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-1940 CivilGAYLE SICCHITANO, Plaintiff GEORGE M. HOFFMAN : and CLAIRE M. : HOFFMAN, : Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 98-1940 CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. HOFFMAN and CLAIRE M. HOFFMAN, Plaintiffs Vo GAYLE SICCHITANO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 98-1848 CIVIL TERM IN RE: ADJUDICATION BEFORE OLER, J. .[~ ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this [d-'day of October, 2000, upon consideration of the action to quiet title filed by Gayle Sicchitano at No. 98-1940 civil term, and of the action to quiet title filed by George M. Hoffman and Claire M. Hoffman at No. 98-1848 civil term, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the court finds in favor of George M. Hoffman and Claire M. Hoffman and against Gayle Sicchitano. The statement of adverse possession filed by Gayle Sicchitano at the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County at Book 172, page 580, is stricken. Ronald D. Butler, Esquire 300 North Second Street P.O. Box 430 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Gayle Sicchitano BY THE COURT, ~/~qesley O~r., J. Marlin R. McCaleb, Esquire Frankeberger Place 219 East Main Street P.O. Box 230 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for George M. Hoffman and Claire M. Hoffman GAYLE SICCHITAN0, Plaintiff Vo GEORGE M. HOFFMAN and CLAIRE M. HOFFMAN, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 98-1940 CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. HOFFMAN and CLAIRE M. HOFFMAN, Plaintiffs V. GAYLE SICCHITANO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 98-1848 CIVIL TERM IN RE: ADJUDICATION BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., October 12, 2000. This civil matter involves a dispute between adjoining property owners over ownership of a triangular piece of land situated along a common border. One property owner, Gayle Sicchitano, filed a statement of adverse possession, and thereafter an action to quiet title in support of her claim. The other property owner, George M. Hoffman and Claire M. Hoffman, filed an action to quiet title in support of their claim. A consolidated nonjury trial on these claims was held on April 27, 2000. At the trial, the court was impressed with the obvious sincerity of both Ms. Sicchitano and the Hoffmans in dealing with a difficult situation that has arisen between neighbors. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the court will find in favor of the Hoffmans and against Ms. Sicchitano. STATEMENT OF FACTS The matter at issue involves a triangular piece of land situated on the eastern border of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot) and the western border of Lot No. 15 (Hoffman Lot) on a subdivision plan for property located in Camp Hill Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Triangle ABG as shown on Appendix A to this opinion delineates the disputed area. A street known as Sycamore Circle constitutes the southern boundary of both lots. The disputed area may be described as being encompassed by a line beginning at a point 90.68 feet west of the southeast comer of Lot No. 15 (Hoffman Lot) and proceeding along its southern line. The line extends westerly by a curve to the right with an arc length of 19.92 feet and a radius of 46.24 feet to a point. The line then extends North 14 degrees 42 minutes East, 131.82 feet, to a point. It thereafter completes a triangle by reconnecting with the point of beginning.~ Gayle Sicchitano purchased Lot No. 16 on August 10, 1995.2 George M. Hoffman and Claire M. Hoffman purchased Lot No. 15 on June 29, 1992.3 On February 25, 1998, Ms. Sicchitano recorded a statement of adverse possession for the triangle of land aforementioned and described.4 On April 3, 1998, the Hoffmans filed an action to quiet title. In this action, they sought to strike the 1 Sicchitano Exhibit 8. The description of the disputed land recorded in the statement of adverse possession was inaccurate. It was corrected by an order of court during the trial, pursuant to an agreement of counsel. N.T. 9-12, Nonjury Trial, April 27, 2000 (hereinafter N.T. __, Nonjury Trial). 2 Sicchitano Exhibit 1. 3 Hoffman Exhibit 1. 4 Sicchitano Exhibit 8. 2 statement of adverse possession and to establish ownership of the land for themselves.5 On April 8, 1998, Ms. Sicchitano filed her own action to quiet title.6 The two cases were consolidated on June 8, 1998, at No. 98-1940.? A nonjury trial was held on April 27, 2000. According to the subdivision plan, recorded in April of 1958, Lot No. 15 (Hoffman Lot) includes the property in dispute; the Hoffman deed description likewise encompasses the disputed triangle.8 The description in the deed to Lot 16 (Sicchitano Lot) is, on the other hand, confusing, due to an error with respect to the place of beginning. The description in Ms. Sicchitano's deed begins as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the Northerly line of Sycamore Circle, said point being located ninety and sixty-eight one-hundredths (90.68) feet measured in a Westerly direction along said line from the Westerly line of Condoguinet Drive;9 The confusion arises because the deed omits a second measurement that the recorded subdivision plan clearly shows. When describing the point of beginning of Lot 16 (Sicchitano Lot), the drafter of the original deed apparently mistook the 90.68 feet measurement as extending to the comer of Lot No. 15 (Hoffman lot). Consequently, a 19.92 foot arc that succeeds the 90.68 measurement was omitted from the description. The subdivision plan clearly indicates that the westernmost point of this arc, rather than the 90.68 foot measurement, forms the comer of Lot No. 15 (Hoffman Lot) and marks the intended point of beginning for Lot No. 16 Hoffman Complaint, filed April 3, 1998. Sicchitano Complaint, filed April 8, 1998. Stipulation for Consolidation, para. 1, filed June 8, 1998. Sicchitano Exhibit 2; Hoffman Exhibit 1. Hoffman Exhibit 2. (Sicchitano Lot).l° This omission occurred in the original deed of 1960 in the Sicchitano chain; the erroneous description has carried forward unaltered throughout the chain of title. Thus, the description in the deed of Ms. Sicchitano reads exactly as the description in the deed of the original owners in 1960.TM However, following the description of the property, the Sicchitano deed refers back to the subdivision plan by concluding: BEING Lot No. 16 on the Conodoguinet Plan of Country Club Hills, said Plan being recorded in the Cumberland Country Recorder's Office in Plan Book 9, Page 33.12 In addition, the eastern line of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot) as described in Ms. Sicchitano's deed references the western line of Lot No. 15 (Hoffman Lot) as being the common boundary: [T]hence by the Westerly line of Lot No. 15 on the said Plan, South 14 degrees 42 minutes West, one hundred thirty-one and eighty-two hundredths (131.82) feet to the place of BEGINNING. ~ 3 The description of property in the chain of title to Lot No. 15 (Hoffman Lot) is in accordance with the subdivision plan--in other words, the description in the deed includes the disputed area. The description of property in the Hoffman deed reads exactly as the description in the deed of the original lot owners in 1967.TM A history of the physical use of the disputed property may be summarized as follows. In the spring of 1970, the owners of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot) lO Sicchitano Exhibit 2; Hoffman Exhibit 2. I I Hoffman Exhibit 2. ~21d' ~3 Id' 14 Hoffman Exhibit 1. 4 planted approximately six evergreen hedges along the eastern line of the disputed triangle,is The owners of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot) and the tenants of Lot No. 15 (Hoffman Lot) were social acquaintances and would visit each other in their respective homes.~6 They jointly agreed as to where the hedges would be planted.~7 If the eastern line of the disputed triangle were divided into thirds, the hedges would be located in the center third,is A split rail fence extended from the back of the hedges to the back of the property where Lot No. 16 and Lot No. 15 met at a point. There was a gap between the hedge and the fence. From the front of the hedges to the front of the property there was only open lawn.~9 A telephone pole stood near the beginning point (southeast corner) of the triangle in dispute? From 1970 until they sold the property in 1978, the owners of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot) mowed along an imaginary line that connected the back fence, the hedge and the telephone pole. They also trimmed both sides of the hedge.2~ The tenants of Lot No. 15 (Hoffman Lot) would mow their lawn up to the same imaginary line. There was a running joke between the neighbors disputing the ownership of the property on which the hedges stood.22 is N.T. 105, Nonjury Trial. 16 N.T. 122, 125, Nonjury Trial. 17 N.T. 125, Nonjury Trial. 18 N.T. 106, Nonjury Trial. 19 N.T. 109-10, Nonjury Trial. 20 N.T. 109, Nonjury Trial. The beginning point is noted in the description of the triangle in the first paragraph. 21 N.T. 110-13, Nonjury Trial. 22 N.T. 112, Nonjury Trial. In 1978, new owners purchased Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot).23 In the spring of 1979, the new owners planted a dogwood tree in the center portion of the disputed triangle's base. They also erected an L-shaped, split rail fence that ran approximately six feet in a western direction and six feet in a southern direction. The fence was erected to prevent snowplows from destroying the tree in the winter.24 The owners of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot) mowed along an imaginary line connecting the back fence, the hedge and the front fence.25 The fence did not enclose the entire property, and the front of the hedges did not connect with the front, L-shaped fence.26 These owners resided on the property from 1978 until 1980.27 During this time, the hedges did not form a solid wall. There were gaps between the hedges. The hedges were slow-growing and required little trimming. On occasion, the owners of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot) would trim their side of the hedge. The tenants of Lot No. 15 (Hoffman Lot) maintained their side of the hedge? From 1980 until they sold the property in 1990, the owners of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot) rented their property to a tenant. During this time, according to the testimony of the housecleaner at Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot), the tenant had a landscaper mow her lawn and maintain the hedges and various flowerbeds in the disputed triangle. The tenants of Lot No. 15 (Hoffman Lot) did not object to the 23 Hoffman Exhibit 2. 24 N.T. 24, Nonjury Trial. 25 N.T. 27-30, Nonjury Trial. 26 N.T. 52-55, Nonjury Trial. 27 N.T. 32, Nonjury Trial. 28 N.T. 40-42, Nonjury Trial. actions of the landscapers, as they did not appear to devote much time to the maintenance of their own lawn.29 In 1990, the tenant of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot) purchased the property and became owner.3° In 1992, the Hoffmans purchased Lot No. 15. Initially, they mowed their lawn up to the imaginary line connecting the back fence, the hedges and the front fence as well as maintaining their side of the hedges. In time, the Hoffmans trimmed the entire hedge once or twice a year. The owner of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot)preferred this arrangement.3~ From the time the Hoffmans purchased the property, they enjoyed a friendly relationship with the owner of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot).32 In the winter of 1993, rails in the L-shaped, front fence broke. The Hoffmans replaced the rails, and the owner of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot) reimbursed them for the cost of the rails. In the summer of 1994, the owner of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot) and the Hoffmans shared another project concerning the area in dispute. At the back of the property, there was a drainage problem, and the result was a pool of water that gathered on this area. The Hoffmans fixed this problem by installing a seepage pipe and trench in the area. The Hoffmans completed this project by themselves, but costs for the project were shared with the owner of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot).33 In May of 1995, with the approval of the owner of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot), the Hoffmans removed a piece of the hedge that was damaged by the previous winter's snow and planted a flowerbed in its place. 34 29 N.T. 134-37, Nonjury Trial. 30 Hoffman Exhibit 2. 3~ N.T. 99, 177-78, Nonjury Trial. 32 N.T. 178, 183, Nonjury Trial. 33 N.T. 179-81, Nonjury Trial. 34 N.T. 64, 14%50, 182-83,200, Nonjury Trial. In 1995, the owner of Lot No. 16 (Sicchitano Lot) died, and Ms. Sicchitano purchased the lot in August of the same year? The Hoffmans continued to mow only up to the line marked by the hedges and front fence, but also planted two butterfly bushes along this line? In early July of 1997, Ms. Sicchitano removed the two butterfly bushes, put them in plastic bags and placed them on the Hoffman property. The Hoffmans then replanted the bushes. The next day, Ms. Sicchitano exchanged words with Ms. Hoffman and removed flowers from the Hoffman flowerbed.37 After these events, on July 31, 1997, the Hoffmans commissioned a survey of their property? The survey found the disputed area to be included in the Hoffman Lot. In accordance with these findings, the surveyors marked the comers of the Hoffman property, which included the disputed triangle, with four stakes. 39 After the survey, the Hoffmans continued to trim the entire hedge and also mowed up to the new line as demarcated by the survey.4° In August of 1997, the Hoffmans began parking a truck on the disputed triangle to prevent Ms. Sicchitano from mowing this area.41 Because the truck failed to keep Ms. Sicchitano off the disputed property, in October of 1997, the Hoffmans took down the fence and marked their property--which included the disputed triangle--with a yellow rope 35 N.T. 183, Nonjury Trial; Hoffman Exhibit 2. 36 N.T. 183-84, 200, Nonjury Trial. 37 N.T. 201-05, Nonjury Trial. 38 N.T. 204, Nonjury Trial. 39 N.T. 184-85, Nonjury Trial. 40 N.T. 186, Nonjury Trial. 41 N.T. 186-88, Nonjury Trial. fence.42 Ms. Sicchitano no longer ventured on the disputed triangle to maintain the lawn, hedges or flowers. 43 In February of 1998, Ms. Sicchitano filed her statement of adverse possession in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County at Book 172, page 5 80.44 Statement of Law Burden of Proof as to Adverse Possession. In Pennsylvania, a party claiming the benefit of adverse possession bears the burden of proof on the issue. Estojak v. Mazsa, 522 Pa. 353, 357, 562 A.2d 271,273 (1989). "It is well settled that he who asserts title by adverse possession must prove it affirmatively." Klos v Molenda, 355 Pa. Super. 399, 401, 513 A.2d 490, 492 (1986) (quoting Robin v. Brown, 308 Pa. 123, 129, 162 A. 161, 162 (1932)); see also Conneaut Lake Park v. Klingensmith, 362 Pa. 562, 594-95, 66 A.2d 828, 829 (1949). General Principles Applicable to Acquisition of Title through Adverse Possession. In Pennsylvania, provision is made by statute for one who claims title by adverse possession to land and who has been dispossessed of the land to protect his or her interest by filing a statement of adverse possession. Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 68, {} 81 (West 1901); cf. Reed Road Associates v. Campbell, 400 Pa. Super. 119, 125, 582 A.2d 1373, 1375-76 (1990). In order to acquire land by adverse possession, the claimant must prove that possession of the land has been actual, distinct, exclusive, visible, notorious, continuous and hostile for a period of twenty-one years. The absence of any one element will cause the claim to fail. Niles v. Fall Creek Hunting Club, Inc., 376 Pa. Super. 260, 265,545 A.2d 926, 929 (1988). 42 N.T. 189, 209, Nonjury Trial; Hoffman Exhibit 12. 43 N.T. 189, 209, Nonjury Trial. 44 Sicchitano Exhibit 8. 9 Adverse possession is made manifest by acts "of such character as [to] compel[ ] the real owner to take notice of the possession of the disseisor .... " Hoover v. Jackson, 362 Pa. Super. 532, 537, 524 A.2d 1367, 1369 (1987) (quoting Parks v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 301 Pa. 475, 481-82, 152 A. 682, 684 (1930)). It has been held that actual possession can be established by a wide variety of circumstances. Thus, the facts of each individual case and the nature of the circumstances determine whether possession was actual. Glenn v. Shuey, 407 Pa. Super. 213,221,595 A.2d 606, 611 (1991). The exclusive element does not require absolute exclusivity. "The exclusive character of appellees' possession was not destroyed because other persons occasionally passed unobserved over the lot. It was enough that appellees' possession was to the general exclusion of others and that they remonstrated with persons who attempted, without permission, to use the land." Reed v. Wolyniec, 323 Pa. Super. 550, 556, 471 A.2d 80, 84 (1983). To satisfy the notorious element of adverse possession, acts must be of such nature that permanent occupation of the land is clearly established. Brouse v. Hauck, 34 Pa. D & C.3d 563,565 (Northumberland County 1982). The hostile element does not imply "ill will" or "hostility" in the usual sense. Rather, it implies a clear assertion of ownership rights adverse to all others. In addition, if all other elements of adverse possession are present, hostility may be implied. Sutton v. Miller, 405 Pa. Super. 213, 226-28, 592 A.2d 83, 90-91 (1991). A physical enclosure of a tract can serve to support a claim of adverse possession. However, it has been said that [w]here an enclosure is relied on to establish adverse possession, it must be of a substantial character, so as to be a protection against outside interference in adapting the premises to some suitable use. An enclosure of the land by ... the erection of a brush fence, or an enclosure by stakes, or the maintenance of a fence which is "crooked, rickety and dilapidated" ... is not sufficient. 10 Hoover v. ~lackson, 362 Pa. Super. 532, 540, 524 A.2d 1367, 1371 (1987) (quoting Robin v. Brown, 308 Pa. 123, 127, 162 A. 161,161-62 (1932)). Adverse possession may be established by tacking the claims of successive occupants, but only where there is privity. Privity refers to the succession of right to the same thing. Castronuovo v. $ordoni, 357 Pa. Super. 187, 193, 515 A.2d 927, 930 (1986). Additionally, inchoate property rights, such as an interest based upon continuing adverse possession, are transferred only if specifically conveyed in the deed. "The only method by which an adverse possessor may convey the title asserted by adverse possession is to describe in the instrument of conveyance by means minimally acceptable for conveyancing of realty that which is intended to be conveyed." Baylor v. $oska, 540 Pa. 435, 441, 658 A.2d 743, 746 (1995). The rationale for this requisite has been explained by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as follows: If tacking were to be permitted because of vague, undefined "circumstances," there could and most likely would be no way for one not a party to the conveyance to know this. But the law mandates that a person asserting a claim of adverse possession make this assertion openly and notoriously to all the world. There must be no secret that the adverse possessor is asserting a claim to the land in question. Id. at 440, 658 A.2d at 745-46. Lots may be described utilizing means such as courses and distances, monuments and ajoinders. Of these three devices, monuments carry the most authority and ajoinders prevail over courses and distances. 1 Ladner on Conveyancing in Pennsylvania § 9:04(e) (Clark et al. eds., 4th ed. rev. 1979). A plan is functionally equivalent in authority to a monument. Harper v. Coleman, 94 Pa. Super. 62, 67 (1928). Thus, a plan is a material and essential part of the deed when referenced. The plan identifying the lot prevails over erroneous courses and lines. Goldsmith v. Means, 104 Pa. Super 571,577-78, 158 A. 596, 599, appeal denied, 104 Pa. Super. xxv (1932). 11 Application of Law to Facts It may be doubted whether the quality of possession by Ms. Sicchitano and her predecessors of the disputed area rises to the level necessary for adverse possession. Possession of the land must be proven to be actual, distinct, exclusive, visible, notorious, continuous and hostile. In the present case, a rather persuasive argument can be made that these elements were not definitively proven. At times, the predecessors of Ms. Sicchitano may have exerted a greater effort in the maintenance of the disputed area than the predecessors of the Hoffmans; however, the effort exerted by the predecessors of Ms. Sicchitano and the fences erected appear to have arisen out of mutual agreement with the residents of Lot No. 15 (Hoffman Lot) and for reasons other than an attempt to assert dominion over the disputed area. However, a more significant difficulty exists with respect to the validity of Ms. Sicchitano's claim for adverse possession. Ms. Sicchitano necessarily asserts that her deed and those of her predecessors purported to encompass the triangle in question. However, based on the facts and law as discussed above, the court is unable to concur with the proposition that the property was included in the deed of Ms. Sicchitano. The rules of construction referred to above militate in favor of a contrary conclusion, notwithstanding the fact that the description in the deed is somewhat defective. In none of the deeds in the Sicchitano chain of title did the description lend itself to a fair reading which encompassed more than the lot as shown on the subdivision plan. Based upon the principles regarding tacking and privity related above, Ms. Sicchitano's adverse possession claim cannot be sustained. The following verdict will therefore be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this [Z~ay of October, 2000, upon consideration of the action to quiet title filed by Gayle Sicchitano at No. 98-1940 civil term, and of the action to quiet title filed by George M. Hoffman and Claire M. Hoffman at No. 98-1848 12 civil term, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the court finds in favor of George M. Hoffman and Claire M. Hoffman and against Gayle Sicchitano. The statement of adverse possession filed by Gayle Sicchitano at the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County at Book 172, page 580, is stricken. BY THE COURT, \s\ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Ronald D. Butler, Esquire 300 North Second Street P.O. Box 430 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Gayle Sicchitano Marlin R. McCaleb, Esquire Frankeberger Place 219 East Main Street P.O. Box 230 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for George M. Hoffman and Claire M. Hoffman 13 APPENDIX A 'c t o