Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-8089 EquityROBERT G. RIDGWAY V. ROBERT L. NORRIS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000-8089 EQUITY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of SEPTEMBER, 2003, we make the Findings of Facts that follow. The parties are directed to file proposed conclusions of law and a brief in support of their respective positions within thirty (30) days. Responsive briefs may be filed within ten (10) days thereafter. FINDINGS OF FACT 1.) The Stipulation of Facts filed by the parties on August 14, 2003, is incorporated herein. 2.) Plaintiffs and defendant each own two lots along the Conodoguinrt Creek in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3.) Defendant's lots are contiguous to each other. Plaintiff's lots are not. 4.) One of Plaintiff' s lots and both of defendant's lots trace their origin to a common tract that had been deeded to Mary Pyne in 1897. 5.) Mary Pyne subsequently subdivided said tract into numerous cottage lots with creek-side frontage. Those lots will hereinafter be referred to collectively as the Mary Pyne tracts. 6.) The Mary Pyne tracts have access to the public road known as State Road by means of a private drive that runs south from said State Road and then from west to east along the Conodoguinet Creek through the various cottage lots. NO. 2000-8089 EQUITY 7.) Plaintiffs own and occupy a Mary Pyne tract which is west of the Mary Pyne tracts owned and occupied by defendant. 8.) Defendant acquired title his Mary Pyne tracts in 1991. Plaintiffs acquired title to their Mary Pyne tract in 1992. 9.) There is only one Mary Pyne tract east of the defendant's tracts. That tract was improved with a residential dwelling and was occupied until the late 1970' s. The private road ends at the eastern border of said lot. 10.) There is a footpath at the boundary separating the two easternmost Mary Pyne tracts. 11.) The footpath leads to State Road and has been regularly used by all owners of the Mary Pyne tracts from at least sometime in the 1950's through today. 12.) The easternmost Mary Pyne tract had a parking area that was used by business invitees of the owner during the 1950's. 13.) On September 18, 1942, Mary Pyne conveyed defendant's eastern tract to Charles Keel et ux by deed which contained the following language: Together with the right to use the private road along the creek for the purpose of ingress egress and regress to the land herein conveyed to the grantees, their heirs and assigns also the right to use the path way leading from the land herein conveyed, along the Caldell-Shumaker line, to the public road, and riparian rights. Subject to the right of other grantees of Mary E. and Joseph Pyne to use the above mentioned private road continued across the land herein conveyed for ingress to and egress from the lots of said grantees beyond the keel lot. 14.) On August 20, 1945, Mary Pyne conveyed defendant's western tract to Edward D. Neff by deed which contained the following language: NO. 2000-8089 EQUITY Together with the right to use the established footpath, along the hillside, over the lands of the grantor and use of roadway, leading to the creek. 15.) The defendant acquired his eastern tract from Robert J. Doyle, et ux by deed dated May 13, 1991. Said deed contains the following language: TOGETHER with the right to use the private road along the creek for the purpose of ingress, egress and regress to and from the lands herein conveyed.., and also the right to use the pathway leading from the lands herein conveyed to the public road, all in common with others. 16.) The defendant acquired his western tract from the same Robert J. Doyle, et ux by deed dated December 26, 1991. Said deed makes reference to the "private road" and "pathway" as "more fully set forth and described" in the deed to the eastern tract. 17.) Mary and Joseph Pyne were married sometime prior to April 28, 1897. 18.) In 1901 Joseph Pyne acquired title to a tract of land which is to the east of and adjacent to the land which eventually became the Mary Pyne tracts. Joseph Pyne died on September 10, 1940 leaving a will which specifically devised said land to Mary Pyne. 19.) On May 1, 1943 Mary Pyne conveyed a portion of the Joseph Pyne tract to Elwood Zerby, Jr. 20.) The tract conveyed to Ellwood Zerby, Jr. contained .4 acres and had frontage along State Road. However, access to the tract from State Road is impractical because of the topography. 21.) The deed to Elwood Zerby, Jr. makes no specific mention of the private road or footpath referenced in the deeds to the Mary Pyne tracts. NO. 2000-8089 EQUITY 22.) Shortly after he purchased it, Ellwood Zerby, Jr. sold the .4 acre tract to Edward Neff. 23.) The Neff deed was never recorded nor was it produced at trial. However, Mr. Neff paid taxes on the property, planted fruit trees and used it as a garden and recreational lot for himself and his family. 24.) Mr. Neff accessed the .4 acre tract by means of the private road described in the Mary Pyne tracts. 25.) Sometime in the 1950's the owner of the easternmost Mary Pyne tract tried to curtail Neff' s use of the private road as an access to the .4 acre lot. 26.) Mr. Neff insisted that he had the legal right to use the private road to access the .4 acre lot. No further attempts to block his access were ever made. 27.) Since Neff never owned a vehicle, his access to the lot was always by foot. 28.) Fisherman drove vehicles over the private road to access the Neff lot as well as fishing spots further downstream. This use occurred during the entire time Neff owned the lot. 29.) Edward Neff died on August 7, 1972. His heirs elected to allow the .4 acre tract to be sold for taxes. 30.) The owners of the easternmost Mary Pyne tract had given defendant's predecessor in interest permission to block vehicular access to said easternmost tract, which he did after they vacated the premises in the late 1970's. 31.) In 1998 plaintiffs obtained the .4 acre tract. 32.) Shortly after plaintiffs purchased the .4 acre tract, a dispute arose between the parties. NO. 2000-8089 EQUITY 33.) Plaintiffs began accessing the tract by vehicle. Defendant claimed plaintiffs had no right to vehicular access across his property. 34.) The parties agreed to mediation in an attempt to resolve their dispute. 35.) Although the parties entered into a "contract" designed to resolve their differences, they clearly understood that compliance with its terms was voluntary. They further acknowledged that the "contract" was not intended to otherwise affect their legal rights and remedies. 36.) The mediation resulted in a short lived peace. 37.) Defendant has erected barriers along the private road to block vehicular access to all points east, including the easternmost Mary Pyne tract as well as the .4 acre lot owned by plaintiffs. 38.) Plaintiffs have constructed speed bumps along the portion of the private road which crosses their Mary Pyne tract. Many vehicles, including the defendant's Mercedes, scrape bottom as the speed bumps are crossed. By the Court, Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire Marlin R. McCaleb, Esquire :sld Edward E. Guido, J.