206 A.3d 569
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- The Coyne Plan (1930s) subdivided ~2.5 acres into 28 lots in Pittsburgh and showed a 40-foot private road (Coyne Terrace) and a 10-foot alley/greenway (the Lot).
- Coyne Terrace was opened as a public street in 1948; the 10-foot Lot remained a private parcel and was later assigned Lot & Block No. 54-R-92 and assessed for taxes.
- Godfrey and Marvit purchased homes/lots in the Coyne Plan (1999 and 2013 respectively); Cronin later purchased the tax-delinquent Lot at a 2013 Treasurer’s Sale and blocked access beginning in 2015.
- Appellants (Marvit and Godfrey) sued (2016) seeking recognition of an easement in the Lot by implication/reference to the Coyne Plan, arguing deeds referencing the plan created private easement rights for lot purchasers.
- The trial court ruled for Cronin, finding no dedication/reservation of an easement in the deeds and concluding any easement was extinguished by the tax sale; Appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does reference to the subdivision plan in purchasers' deeds create an easement over the Lot? | Reference to the Coyne Plan in deeds creates an implied easement/right to use streets/alleys shown on the plan. | No express dedication in deeds; thus no easement; plaintiffs produced no purchaser deeds showing dedication. | Court: Yes — deeds referencing the plan gave purchasers an implied easement in the Lot. |
| Is an easement based on a plan governed by ordinary easement-by-implication rules or by special principles for plat/map references? | Appellants relied on plat-reference principles (easement by reference to plan). | Cronin argued general requirements for easement-by-implication were not satisfied. | Court: Plat/map reference is a distinct type of implied easement controlled by its own principles (Potis). |
| Did the tax sale to Cronin extinguish any preexisting easement? | Appellants: purchaser at tax sale takes subject to existing easements; tax sale does not destroy servitudes. | Trial court: tax sale extinguished any prior easement. | Court: Tax sale did not extinguish the easement; purchaser takes title subject to the easement. |
| Was acceptance or dedication within 21 years required to validate the easement? | Appellants invoked plan-based easement; acceptance/time limitations not applicable to plat-based implied easement. | Cronin argued lack of acceptance within 21 years defeated any dedication. | Court: The trial court’s acceptance-within-21-years theory was incorrect as applied; plat-based easement principles control. |
Key Cases Cited
- Potis v. Coon, 496 A.2d 1188 (Pa. Super. 1985) (establishes that easements by reference to a map/plat are a particular type of implied easement governed by specific principles)
- Cox’s Inc. v. Snodgrass, 92 A.2d 540 (Pa. 1952) (grantees of lots sold according to a plan acquire private easement rights in streets/alleys plotted on the plan)
- Kao v. Haldeman, 728 A.2d 345 (Pa. 1999) (discusses rights of purchasers of lots sold according to a subdivision plan to use plotted streets)
- Tide-Water Pipe Co. v. Bell, 124 A. 351 (Pa. 1924) (tax purchaser takes title subject to preexisting easements and servitudes)
- Tosh v. Witts, 113 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1955) (typical formulation of easement by implication requirements)
- Yablonski v. Keevican Weiss Bauerle & Hirsch LLC, 197 A.3d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2018) (standard of review for non-jury trials)