Czarkowski v. Jennings
34 Pa. D. & C.5th 303
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2013Background
- Czarkowskis moved for a preliminary injunction against Jennings to bar him from asserting any interest in six feet of a twelve-foot alley between their properties and to prevent entry/use of that portion.
- Plaintiffs claim fee title to one-half of the alley under 36 P.S. § 1961 due to non-use by the public for 21 years.
- Jennings excavated in the alley and allegedly removed a berm, allegedly causing water/sediment damage to Czarkowskis’ property.
- An ex parte special injunction issued on Sept. 23, 2013 required Jennings to remove equipment and refrain from trespass until further order.
- A hearing on Sept. 30, 2013, with witnesses and exhibits, followed by post-hearing submissions, led to the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The court denied the injunction, holding Czarkowskis did not prove fee title to the alley center or that Jennings had no implied easement, and found no irreparable harm or continuing trespass.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Czarkowskis hold fee title to the alley center or Jennings has an implied easement. | Czarkowskis rely on Rahn to claim fee title to the center. | Jennings contends he owns the alley via post-1953 conveyances and that Rahn does not apply to private boundary alleys. | Czarkowskis fail to show fee title free of Jennings’ implied rights; Jennings may have an easement rights in the alley. |
| Whether Czarkowskis are entitled to injunctive relief to bar Jennings from using the alley. | Czarkowskis assert lack of Jennings’ rights and irreparable harm from water damage. | Jennings asserts he has rights to the alley and that any harm is not irreparable or caused by trespass. | Not entitled to injunctive relief; irreparable harm not established and Jennings’ rights remain. |
| Whether Czarkowskis proved Jennings’ trespass and resulting irreparable harm. | Jennings trespassed by excavation causing water damage. | Evidence does not credibly prove a berm removal or causation of damage; water damage may be from storm. | No actionable trespass proved; harm not shown to be irreparable. |
| Whether the absence of irreparable harm defeats the injunction even if ownership issues favored Czarkowskis. | Even with ownership, ongoing harm requires relief. | Single incident and lack of ongoing harm negate irreparable harm finding. | Irreparable harm not established; injunction denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rahn v. Hess, 378 Pa. 264 (Pa. 1954) (center-title boundary rule; private rights not extinguished; 21-year public use timeline key)
- Ferko v. Spisak, 373 Pa. Super. 303 (Pa. Super. 1988) (abutting owners acquire center title when street not opened; private rights considered)
- Leininger v. Trapizona, 165 Pa. Cmwlth. 493 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (private easements remain where no public use; rights to travel remain interdependent)
- Murphy v. Martini, 884 A.2d 262 (Pa. Super. 2005) (unopened road/alley; public dedication offers; court recognized private center-title in some contexts)
- Ott v. Reager, 313 Pa. Super. 365 (Pa. Super. 1983) (offer to dedicate streets; analysis of dedication vs. ownership)