23 A.3d 619
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- Lot Owners appealed a trial court order mandating removal of a landscaping wall that allegedly interfered with a utility easement and a road within Big Bass Lake Community.
- The Wall and planter were located within a 40-foot right-of-way around State Park Drive; the wall was two to three feet from the road’s edge.
- The Association sued in equity for injunctions, asserting Covenant VII (utility easement) and Covenant III (road use) and for attorney’s fees; a preliminary hearing led to a permanent injunction.
- On remand from this Court, the remand instructions guided the trial court to determine if encroachment, easement interference, or covenant violations justified relief.
- On trial, Association relied on expert testimony that the wall created a traffic hazard and blocked the right-of-way; Lot Owners presented contrary testimony about low-volume road standards and existing encroachments by others.
- The trial court granted a permanent injunction to remove the wall, which Lot Owners challenged on the grounds of evidentiary disregard and failure to prove entitled relief; this Court reverses the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion on evidentiary credibility | Lot Owners—Reilly’s low-volume road standard and related evidence should have been credited | Association—Fisk’s evidence showed a hazard and warranted relief | Yes; trial court erred in crediting Fisk over Reilly and in disregarding conflicting evidence |
| Whether the Association proved entitlement to a permanent injunction | Association failed to prove Covenant I violation and the relief was not narrowly tailored | Association proved interference with the easement and need for relief | Yes; Association failed to prove a clear right to relief and relief was not properly tailored |
Key Cases Cited
- Big Bass Lake Community Association v. Warren, 950 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (vacated permanent injunction; remand for proper consideration of covenants and encroachment)
- Singleton v. Lavan, 834 A.2d 672 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (mandatory injunction factors; strict showing required for mandatory relief)
- Bold Corporation v. County of Lancaster, 569 Pa. 107 (2002) (appellate review of trial findings; credibility and competent evidence standard)
- Moyerman v. Glanzberg, 391 Pa. 387 (1958) (interference with easements requires significant interference for relief)
- Penn Square General Corporation v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Lancaster, 936 A.2d 158 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (de novo review on questions of law; plenary scope for review of injunctions)
- Buffalo Township v. Jones, 571 Pa. 637 (2002) (statutory and common-law standards in injunctive relief; guidance on scope of review)