Blackwood, Inc. v. Reading Blue Mountain & N. R.R. Co.
147 A.3d 594
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Blackwood, Inc. sued to quiet title to land underlying railroad tracks on its 2,300-acre tract in Schuylkill County, alleging no recorded grant conveyed the land under the tracks to the railroad.
- Blue Mountain (successor by deed chain through Conrail from Reading Company) claimed title to three lines (West End Branch/Tremont Extension, Swatara Branch, Middle Creek Extension) that traverse Blackwood’s property.
- Blue Mountain showed the lines were originally built by Mine Hill Railroad under a 1828 statutory charter (Act 96) that authorized fee takings by eminent domain; Reading acquired Mine Hill’s lines and later conveyed them to Conrail (1976) and Conrail to Blue Mountain (1990). The lines have been used continuously.
- Trial court granted Blue Mountain summary judgment on title and denied Blackwood leave to amend to assert statutory private-crossing claims; Blackwood appealed.
- On initial panel review, the court accepted the 20-year presumption of rail title and agreed Blue Mountain held title; on re-argument en banc, the only remaining issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Blackwood leave to amend to assert a private-crossing claim under Act 96.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Act 96 creates a private-crossing cause of action | Blackwood: §18 creates a private-crossing right enforceable now | Blue Mountain: statute limited or inapplicable; delay bars claim | Court: §18 does create a private-crossing cause of action; Blackwood may plead one such crossing |
| Number of private crossings available under §18 | Blackwood: sought 3–5 private crossings | Blue Mountain: statute limits crossings to one per landowner/lot | Court: §18 permits at most one private crossing per person owning/possessing land |
| Applicable statute of limitations for §18 claim | Blackwood: §19 six-month language applies only to penalties; claim not time-barred by that clause | Blue Mountain: §19 imposes six-month bar | Court: §19 pertains to penalties and not to §18 private-crossing claims; general six-year limitation (42 Pa.C.S. §5527(b)) likely governs; timeliness must be determined by trial court |
| Whether denial of leave to amend was proper given timing/prejudice | Blackwood: amendment should be freely allowed; delay alone insufficient to deny | Blue Mountain: late amendment before summary judgment prejudices defense | Court: denial was abuse of discretion; prejudice not shown—leave to amend must be granted to assert single private-crossing claim and trial court must then decide timeliness and necessity |
Key Cases Cited
- Coxe v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 158 A.2d 782 (Pa. 1960) (after 20 years courts presume railroad title was paid for or granted even if original grant lost)
- Brankin v. Phila., Newtown & N.Y. R.R. Co., 133 A. 563 (Pa. 1926) (20-year presumption that damages or interests have been satisfied)
- Hill v. Ofalt, 85 A.3d 540 (Pa. Super. 2014) (leave to amend lies in trial court’s discretion and should be liberally granted absent prejudice or legal futility)
- Capobianchi v. BIC Corp., 666 A.2d 344 (Pa. Super. 1995) (prejudice sufficient to deny amendment must be more than mere detriment or opponent’s preparation costs)
- Phillips v. Lock, 86 A.3d 906 (Pa. Super. 2014) (statute of limitations can bar presenting a new cause of action via amendment)