Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-3660 CivilEBERLY'S MILL CHURCH OF GOD, Plaintiff VS. JAMES TURBAN, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 02-3660 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF BEFORE HESS. J. OPINION AND ORDER On December 5, 2003, this court entered an order in ejectment. In that order we determined that the plaintiff is the undisputed owner of the property located at 113 Creek Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, as further described in a deed to Eberly's Mill Church of God, recorded in Deed Book 109, Page 812, in the Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office. On December 18, 2003, the defendant filed a motion for post-trial relief. In that motion, the defendant alleges that we erred, inter alia, by (1) declining to resolve the defendant's counterclaim that the plaintiff had improperly extended a right-of-way into its church parking lot, and (2) in failing to hold that the defendant enjoyed an easement over the entire "east lawn." The post-trial motions have been subsequently argued. With regard to the second issue, we continue to be satisfied with our disposition. Specifically, we believe that case law was properly applied and in a determination that the defendant has an easement over a walkway from the parking area to his property line but does not have an easement over all of the land abutting the walkway. 02-3660 CIVIL We agree with the defendant with respect to the first issue raised. We are satisfied that we erred in not making any finding with regard to the defendant's counterclaim and now agree with him that the extension of the right-of-way is improper. The plaintiff possesses two lots collectively known as 113 Creek Road. The defendant owns an adjoining lot. The plaintiff and defendant share a parking area. There is access to the parking area from Cedar Cliff Drive by virtue of a driveway. The driveway extends over lands of both the plaintiff and defendant and is, at least at one point, entirely on the land of the defendant. In 1994, the predecessors in title of both the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a right-of-way agreement in essence providing access to both of their properties to their mutual benefit. Following the purchase of the property at 113 Creek Road, the plaintiff, Eberly's Mill Church of God, extended its driveway on the church property so that it connected with the driveway heretofore mentioned. As a result of that connection, traffic now passes over land of the defendant not only to the property at 113 Creek Road but also to the church parking lot. Neither the church nor any predecessor in title was party to the 1994 right-of-way agreement affecting 113 Creek Road and the property of the defendant, 1 Cedar Cliff Drive. According to our appellate courts, an easement which benefits a particular piece of land cannot be enlarged or extended to other parcels of land to which the right is not attached. Owens v. Holzhied, 335 Pa. Super. 231,240, 484 A.2d 107, 112 (1984) citing Percy A. Brown & Co. v. Raub, 357 Pa. 271, 54 A.2d 35 (1947). This proposition is particularly logical when the right-of- way, as in this case, is, at least at one point, solely on the land of the defendant who does not consent to the extension. In the instant case, the right-of-way agreement granted the parties the mutual right to use the original driveway for ingress, egress, and regress. There is no mention in the right-of-way 2 02-3660 CIVIL agreement of any right to extend the right-of-way. The plaintiff' s extension of the stone driveway would allow church members to enter and leave the church parking lot which is on a parcel of land which was never part of the original lands involved in the right-of-way agreement. Furthermore, it is generally true that easements may not be modified, changed, altered, or relocated without the consent of both the dominant and servient estates. Soderberg v. Weisel, 455 Pa. Super. 158, 687 A.2d 839 (1997), citing Pennsylvania Water and Power Co. v. Reigart, 127 Pa. Super. 600, 193 A. 311 (1937). In Soderberg, the court went on to note: However, there is no per se prohibition against a landowner relocating a prescriptive easement unless such action completely denies the easement holder the intended use of the original easement. Rather, courts employ the test of whether the relocation will unreasonably interfere with the easement holder's use and enjoyment of his right- of-way. What constitutes unreasonable interference on the part of the servient owner depends upon the owner and his desired use, as well as the disadvantage to the owner of the easement. Soderberg v. Weisel, at 842. This case, of course, does not involve the relocation of an easement. Nonetheless, by connecting the easement to the church parking lot, the servient owner has substantially changed or altered the nature of the easement. Mr. Turban no longer enjoys a driveway into the parking area but, instead, has had his driveway changed into a church entrance. We will, accordingly, grant the defendant's post-trial relief, at least in part.~ ~ The defendant has raised and briefed one or two other issues but we are satisfied that these matters are moot in light of our ruling on the matter of the east lawn. The defendant also seeks permission to park a specified number of vehicles in the parking area. We decline to specify a number. The sole obligation of the defendant in this regard is to refrain from interfering with the fight-of-way enjoyed by the owner of 113 Creek Road. 3 02-3660 CIVIL ORDER AND NOW, this relief is GRANTED as follows: The plaintiff shall remove or block the paved driveway extension between the church parking lot and the parking area on Lot 3 at its sole cost and expense and shall, in any event, immediately cease and desist from using said extension. BY THE COURT, day of March, 2004, the motion of the defendant for post-trial Mary Etter Dissinger, Esquire For the Plaintiff Lawrence B. Abrahms, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J. 4 EBERLY'S MILL CHURCH OF GOD, Plaintiff VS. JAMES TURBAN, Defendant AND NOW, this relief is GRANTED as follows: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 02-3660 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF BEFORE HESS. J. ORDER day of March, 2004, the motion of the defendant for post-trial The plaintiff shall remove or block the paved driveway extension between the church parking lot and the parking area on Lot 3 at its sole cost and expense and shall, in any event, immediately cease and desist from using said extension. BY THE COURT, Mary Etter Dissinger, Esquire For the Plaintiff Lawrence B. Abrahms, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J.