History
  • No items yet
midpage
210 A.3d 270
Pa. Super. Ct.
2019
Read the full case

Background

  • Affordable Outdoor purchased real property at a judicial tax-sale that included a large billboard (the Billboard) and believed the billboards transferred with the land; Tri-Outdoor (Appellant) had been advertising on that Billboard and claimed ownership.
  • Affordable Outdoor sued Tri-Outdoor seeking unjust enrichment and equitable relief (including declaratory relief that Affordable owned the Billboard and an injunction preventing Tri-Outdoor from entering or removing the Billboard); Tri-Outdoor answered and counterclaimed (including for a prescriptive easement and declaratory relief).
  • After a non-jury trial the trial court found: no unjust enrichment; the tax sale conveyed absolute title free of claims unless a valid leasehold existed at the time; the Billboard was a fixture annexed to the land; Tri-Outdoor failed to prove a valid lease or transfer from predecessors; and Tri-Outdoor failed to prove a prescriptive easement because its owner believed he had permission (defeating hostility).
  • The trial court entered an order declaring Affordable Outdoor the owner of the property and fixtures and enjoined Tri-Outdoor from entering or removing the Billboard; Tri-Outdoor filed post-trial motions (denied) and later praeciped to enter judgment and appealed.
  • The Superior Court considered whether the appeal was timely given declaratory-judgment jurisprudence and amendments to Pa.R.A.P. 341, declined to quash the appeal, and affirmed the trial court on the merits—particularly upholding the denial of a prescriptive easement.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Affordable) Defendant's Argument (Tri-Outdoor) Held
Timeliness of appeal from order disposing of post-trial motions and praecipe/entry of judgment Trial court’s denial of post-trial motions disposing declaratory relief was the appeal-triggering event; but under amended Rule 341 an appeal from the later praecipe entry can be timely when non-declaratory claims remain Appellant argued its appeal was timely because it filed within 30 days of the final praecipe-entry judgment and the trial court’s order addressed both declaratory and non-declaratory claims Appeal not quashed: under Rule 341(b)(1) and post-2015 rule changes, praecipe entry was appropriate given remaining non-declaratory claims; appeal timely
Prescriptive easement / ownership of Billboard Tri-Outdoor asserted long, open, notorious, continuous adverse use (21 years) and ownership via corporate documents and predecessor agreements Affordable argued the Billboard is a fixture conveyed by the tax sale, Tri-Outdoor failed to prove a valid lease at the time of sale or acquisition from predecessors, and Tri-Outdoor’s own testimony showed permissive use (defeating hostility and continuity) Affirmed trial court: Tri-Outdoor failed to prove prescriptive easement (no hostile intent; permissive use and interrupted payments) and failed to establish enforceable ownership transfers; Affordable owns the Billboard as a fixture

Key Cases Cited

  • Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wickett, 763 A.2d 813 (Pa. 2000) (Declaratory Judgment Act makes orders declaring rights final in certain contexts)
  • Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pinkerton, 830 A.2d 958 (Pa. 2003) (post-trial declaratory judgments are subject to post-trial motion procedures)
  • Jones v. Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 856 A.2d 838 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discussing appeal timing after declaratory-judgment orders and post-trial motions)
  • Crystal Lake Camps v. Alford, 923 A.2d 482 (Pa. Super. 2007) (post-trial practice and interplay with declaratory judgments and praecipe entry)
  • Peters v. Nat. Interstate Ins. Co., 108 A.3d 38 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness of appeal in declaratory-judgment actions where post-trial motions were filed)
  • Keefer v. Jones, 359 A.2d 735 (Pa. 1976) (continuity requirement for prescriptive easement: settled course of conduct suffices)
  • Walley v. Iraca, 520 A.2d 886 (Pa. Super. 1987) (permission/signs of seeking permission undermine prescriptive easement claim)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Affordable Outdoor, LLC v. Tri-Outdoor, Inc.
Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Apr 24, 2019
Citations: 210 A.3d 270; 2388 EDA 2018
Docket Number: 2388 EDA 2018
Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.
Log In
    Affordable Outdoor, LLC v. Tri-Outdoor, Inc., 210 A.3d 270