Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-2977 CivilTHE MECHANICSBURG CLUB, INC., Plaintiff Ve MORGAN C. HAHN and MARY HAHN, husband and wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 95-2977 CIVIL TERM IN RE: ADJUDICATION BEFORE OLER, J. DECREE NISI AND NOW, this ~ day of April, 1997, upon consideration of Plaintiff's complaint in the above-captioned matter, following a trial before the court, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the Court finds in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. P. Richard Wagner, Esq. 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff BY THE COURT, J.~sleY Ol~r., ~J ¢ Robert G. Radebach, Esq. 107 Locust Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants THE MECHANICSBURG CLUB, INC., : Plaintiff : Ve MORGAN C. HAHN and MARY HAHN, husband and wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 95-2977 CIVIL TERM IN RE: ADJUDICATION BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and DECREE NISI Oler, J., April 4, 1997. This case in equity~ arises out of Defendants' construction of a fence on land claimed by both parties. A trial was held before the undersigned judge on October 18, 1996. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the court will find in favor of Defendants and Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff is the Mechanicsburg Club, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation having its headquarters in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania;2 the club is a social and community service organization, with 3,000 members.3 ~ This action was commenced in law, but both counsel have agreed that it should be regarded as an equity case. See pretrial conference order, June 19, 1996 (Hoffer, J.). It is noted that counsel for Plaintiff submitted a post- trial brief, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, on behalf of Plaintiff. Defendants' counsel has not done so as of the filing of this opinion. 2 Plaintiff's complaint, paragraph 1; Defendant's answer, paragraph 1. 3 N.T. 5, Trial, October 18, 1996 (hereinafter N.T. __). NO. 95-2977 CIVIL TERM 2. Defendants are Morgan C. Hahn and Mary Hahn, adult individuals and husband and wife, having an address of R.D. Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.4 3. Plaintiff owns a certain tract of mountain land in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, east of Sterrett's Gap and west of Miller's Gap Road.s 4. Defendant Morgan C. Hahn owns a certain tract of land adjoining, and immediately above (north of), Plaintiff's land.~ 5. These tracts consist primarily of unenclosed woodland.7 6. A common grantor (Mary Jane Dixon) once owned land that encompassed both tracts.8 4 Plaintiff's complaint, paragraph 2; Defendant's answer, paragraph 2. ~ See Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, Trial, October 18, 1996 (hereinafter Plaintiff's/Defendants' Exhibit__) (deed from Jacob H. Miller to The Mechanicsburg Club, dated April 27, 1978); Defendants' Exhibit 2 (boundary survey prepared by Grove A associates Engineers & Surveying, dated June 30, 1994 [location plan block]); cf. N.T. 49. ~ See Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 (executrix's deed from Elizabeth Reist to Morgan C. Eugene Hahn, dated May 14, 1975); Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 (plan prepared by Hartman & Assoc., Inc., dated October 3, 1996). In this opinion, perches have been converted to feet and acres. 7 N.T. 52. Defendants built a home on the tract owned by Defendant Morgan C. Hahn in 1989 or 1990, and reside there. N.T. 66. 8 See Defendants' Exhibit 1 (plan prepared by A.B. Rupp, dated August 16, 1906); Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 (deed from George 2 NO. 95-2977 CIVIL TERM 7. The land of the common grantor was determined at the time of her ownership to contain 235.51 acres.9 8. In 1906, the common grantor conveyed the tract now owned by Defendant Morgan C. Hahn to a predecessor in title; the tract was described as being 68.25 acres.~° 9. The deed description of the Hahn tract has not materially changed since this initial conveyance.~ 10. In 1907, the common grantor conveyed the land from which the tract now owned by Plaintiff is derived to a predecessor in title; the tract was described as being 167.26 acres.~2 11. The 1906 and 1907 conveyances represented all of the common grantor's land.~3 Spencer to Mary Jane Dixon, dated March 18, 1889). See id. The deed into Mary Jane Dixon indicated 235.75 acres. ~o See Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 (notation of deed from Mary Jane Dixon to W. Scott Coyle, dated December 6, 1906). This deed was recorded on December 7, 1906. Id. n N.T. 95. ~ See Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 (notation of deed from Mary J. Dixon to John A. Weary dated March 28, 1907). This deed was recorded on March 28, 1907. Id. ~3 N.T. 13, 54. NO. 95-2977 CIVIL TERM 12. Plaintiff's predecessors in title conveyed away 3.09 acres of their land.TM 13. In theory, Defendant Morgan C. Hahn should thus own a tract of 68.25 acres and Plaintiff should own a tract of 164.17 acres. 14. A field survey (performed on behalf of Defendants) of the tract owned by Defendant Morgan C. Hahn concluded that the tract comprised 68.74 acres - about half an acre more than might have been expected.~5 15. A field survey (performed on behalf of Plaintiff) of the tract owned by Plaintiff concluded that the tract comprised 165.248 acres -- about an acre more than might have been expected.~6 16. A strip of about an acre and a half along the boundary between the two tracts is in dispute pursuant to the surveys,~7 ~ See Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 (deed from Jacob H. & Beulah O. Miller to Joseph & Violet B. Barrick, dated March 11, 1949; deed from Jacob H. Miller et ux. to Charles E. Mumma, dated March 12, 1949; deed from Jacob H. Miller and Beulah O. Miller to Donald C. Rimmer, dated March 27, 1970). ~ See Defendants' Exhibit 2 (boundary survey prepared by Grove Associates Engineers & Surveyors, dated June 30, 1994). ~6 See Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 (survey prepared by Hartman Assoc., Inc., dated March 3, 1978). Neither surveyor appears to have surveyed both properties. Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 is, as it indicates, a deed plot of the Hahn tract, not a field survey. ~7 See Defendant's Exhibit 2 (boundary survey performed by Grove Associates Engineers & Surveyors, dated June 30, 1994); see also Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 (plan prepared by Hartman & Assoc., Inc., dated October 3, 1996). 4 NO. 95-2977 CIVIL TERM suggesting that the initial overall acreage estimate at the time of the conveyances by the common grantor was probably accurate. 17. No distance is provided by deed description for the southern line of the Hahn property; however, a distance of 1650 feet appears in Plaintiff's chain of title for this common boundary.~8 18. Within the last several years, Defendant Morgan C. Hahn has cut timber within the disputed area;~9 in 1994 or 1995, Defendants constructed a barbed wire fence within the disputed area.2° 19. A sawmill which was operated by a predecessor in title of Defendant Morgan C. Hahn (his father) before his death in 1970 was located in the disputed area.2~ 20. Several blazed trees may be found within the disputed area, at least one being on the line suggested by Defendants' surveyor.22 ~ See Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 (executrix's deed from Elizabeth Reist to Morgan C. Eugene Hahn, dated May 14, 1995); Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 (deed from James A. Potteiger et ux. to Jacob H. Miller et ux., dated December 7, 1914). ~9 N.T. 7-8; 75. 20 Plaintiff's complaint, paragraph 5; Defendants' answer, paragraph 5; N.T. 52, 70, 76; Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 (plan prepared by Hartman & Assoc., Inc., dated October 3, 1996). 2~ N.T. 68-69. 22 See Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 (plan prepared by Hartman & Assoc., Inc., dated October 3, 1996). NO. 95-2977 CIVIL TERM 21. Defendants' surveyor found and utilized23 a monument (stones) constituting the starting point in the deed for the Hahn tract -- said monument being at the northwest corner of the tract;24 this monument also appears in a 1906 survey of the common grantor's land.~s 22. A monument in the form of stones at the northeast corner of the Hahn tract no longer exists.~6 23. Defendants' surveyor found and utilized a reinforced bar or field post as the southeast corner of the tract owned by Defendant Morgan C. Hahn;~? by way of contrast, Plaintiff's surveyor found and utilized a stake in stones for the northeast corner of the tract owned by Plaintiff (and by implication for the southeast corner of the Hahn tract).28 23 See Defendants' Exhibit 2 (boundary survey prepared by Grove Associates Engineers & Surveyors, dated June 30, 1994). 24 See Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 (executrix's deed from Elizabeth Reist to Morgan C. Eugene Hahn, dated May 14, 1975). 2s See Defendants' Exhibit 1 (plan prepared by A.B. Rupp, dated August 16, 1906). 26 N.T. 100; see Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 (executrix's deed from Elizabeth Reist to Morgan C. Eugene Hahn, dated May 14, 1975); Defendants' Exhibit 2 (survey prepared by A.B. Rupp, dated August 16, 1906). 27 See Plaintiff's Exhibit Assoc., Inc., dated October 3, (boundary survey prepared by Surveyors, dated June 30, 1994). 5 (plan prepared by Hartman & 1996); Defendants' Exhibit 2 Grove Associates Engineers & ~ See Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 (survey prepared by Hartman & AsSoc., Inc., dated March 3, 1978). NO. 95-2977 CIVIL TERM 24. Although neither the bar/post nor the stake in stones is mentioned as a monument for that corner in the deed to the tract owned by Defendant Morgan C. Hahn,29 the resultant (disputed) common boundary line drawn by Defendants' surveyor (1687.69 feet) is closer in distance to that called for in Plaintiff's chain of title (1650 feet) than is the line drawn by Plaintiff's surveyor (1702.31 feet).3° 25. The resultant western boundary line of the Hahn tract, as drawn by Defendants' surveyor, from its point of intersection with the (disputed) southern boundary line to the aforesaid monument of stones (the place of beginning) is precisely consistent in distance (1650 feet) with the distance provided for by deed.3~ 26. Neither survey of the tracts at issue herein matches exactly the deed descriptions in terms of courses and distances; 29 See Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 (executrix's deed from Elizabeth Reist to Morgan C. Eugene Hahn, dated May 14, 1975). 3o See note 18 supra and accompanying text; Defendants' Exhibit 2 (boundary survey prepared by Grove Associated Engineers & Surveyors, dated June 30, 1994); Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 (executrix's deed from Elizabeth Reist to Morgan C. Eugene Hahn, dated May 14, 1975); Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 (survey prepared by Hartman & Assoc., Inc., dated March 3, 1978) (indicating 1650-foot boundary in Plaintiff's chain and 1702.31-foot length determined by Plaintiff's surveyor). 3~ See Defendants' Exhibit 2 (boundary survey prepared by Grove Associates Engineers & Surveyors, dated June 30, 1994); Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 (executrix's deed from Elizabeth Reist to Morgan C. Eugene Hahn, dated May 14, 1975). 7 NO. 95-2977 CIVIL TERM both surveys have undertaken to achieve a general adherence to the same · 32 27. After careful consideration of all of the evidence in the case, the court finds that the survey prepared by Grove Associates Engineers & Surveyors, titled Boundary Survey Morgan Hahn Tract, and dated June 30, 1994,33 is an accurate depiction of the tract owned by Defendant Morgan C. Hahn. 28. The aforesaid fence erected by Defendants in the disputed area does not represent an incursion into Plaintiff's land. DISCUSSION "The question of where a boundary line actually is located is a question for the trier of fact." Schimp v. Allaman, 442 Pa. Super. 365, 368, 659 A.2d 1032, 1034 (1995)· Of the two tracts at issue in the present case, the tract owned by Defendant Morgan C. Hahn was the earlier recorded conveyance from the common grantor. Where a conflict exists, this tract will prevail over the later one.34 The main focus of the · inquiry should thus be upon the extent of the Hahn grant. ~2 See Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 (survey prepared by Hartman & Assoc., Inc., dated March 3, 1978); Defendants' Exhibit 2 (boundary survey prepared by Grove Associates Engineers & Surveyors, dated June 30, 1994); Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 (executrix's deed from Elizabeth Reist to Morgan C. Eugene Hahn, dated May 14, 1975). Defendants' Exhibit 2. ~ Walleigh v. Emery, 193 Pa. Super. 53, 163 A.2d 665 (1960). NO. 95-2977 CIVIL TERM Rules of construction with respect to the description of property conveyed in a deed have been summarized as follows: In general, permanent monuments such as a "run," a creek or a township road will prevail over courses and distances when there is a conflict. This rule is very ancient. Monuments will likewise prevail over calls for adjoinders, which, however, prevail over inconsistent courses and distances. But a stake or post long gone is not such a monument as is controlling. The monuments must be certain as to existence and location in order to control. If they are doubtful, resort will be had to courses and distances, although parol evidence is admissible to show the existence of the monuments. So, courses and distances will prevail over part of an adjoining building, not essential to the description, which projects across the boundary line established by the courses and distances. And maps, plats or field notes referred to in the description, are regarded as incorporated into the description and stand on an equal footing with monuments. Quantity of the land (e.g., acreage) is considered as the least certain and yields to other description if the latter is clear. This is especially so where the acreage recited is stated to be "more or less." But if the actual location of the boundary is in doubt and the writing contains no records to fix the line definitely, the acreage becomes a material factor in determining the intention of the parties, which is the purpose making these rules of construction necessary. In such a case, even the words "more or less" are regarded as only words of safety and precaution to cover some slight or unintentional inaccuracy, and uncertainties of description are subject to the general rule that a doubtful meaning will be construed most strongly against the grantor. 1Ladner, Conveyancing in Pennsylvania S9.04(e), at 14-15 (4th ed. 1979) (footnotes omitted). 9 NO. 95-2977 CIVIL TERM In the present case, several factors have led the court to accept the opinion of Defendants' surveyor as to the location of the disputed boundary. First, the surveyor performed a field survey of the entire tract which is the main focus of the present inquiry. Second, the survey includes the following attributes: (a) a found monument in the northwest corner of the tract, (b) a western boundary line exactly equal in length to that called for in the deed, (c) an eastern boundary line with a southern terminus at a previous surveyor's mark, (d) a general (although not precise3~) adherence to courses provided for in the deed, (e) a resultant (disputed) southern boundary line having a distance more nearly equal to that specified in Plaintiff's deed chain than the line proposed by Plaintiff's surveyor, and (f) a resultant acreage of the tract more nearly equal in amount to that specified in the deed than the acreage which may be inferred from Plaintiff's proposed boundary. Third, the history of the disputed area in terms of blazed trees and operation of a sawmill by a Hahn predecessor in title does not support the line proposed by Plaintiff. Although the case is admittedly a difficult one, the court will for these reasons confirm the boundary line advocated by Defendants. 35 See note 32 supra and accompanying text. 10 NO. 95-2977 CIVIL TERM CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this dispute. 2. The survey prepared by Defendants' surveyor having been found to accurately define the boundary line between Plaintiff's tract and that of Defendant Morgan C. Hahn, Plaintiff's complaint based upon an alleged incursion of Defendants by means of a fence upon Plaintiff's property must be dismissed. DECREE NISI AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 1997, upon consideration of Plaintiff's complaint in the above-captioned matter, following a trial before the court, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the Court finds in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. BY THE COURT, P. Richard Wagner, Esq. 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff Robert G. Radebach, Esq. 107 Locust Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants : rc s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 11