Dennis, J. v. Palman, J.
467 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- James N. Dennis (appellant) owns Lot 13; John L. and Sherry I. Palman (appellees) own adjacent Lot 14 in Shrewsbury Township, York County.
- Appellees installed a vinyl pool fence in 2001 that extended beyond an earlier wooden lattice fence and sat closer to Dennis’s deed line; Dennis erected his own wooden fence in 2007.
- Dennis planted two pine trees in 1976 near the corner of his lot and for decades both neighbors treated the line running through the center of those pines as the common boundary.
- Appellees maintained (mowed, weeded, mulched) up to the pine-tree line since about 1976; Dennis did not object to that line until a 2013 survey.
- Dennis sued in ejectment (2014) seeking removal of appellees’ vinyl fence; after a bench trial (2015) the trial court found the parties had established a consentable line and entered judgment for appellees; the Superior Court affirmed (Jan. 24, 2017).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dennis) | Defendant's Argument (Palman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pine trees could legally establish the boundary | Trees were not a sufficiently definite physical line (no fence/hedge; trees too far apart) | Trees and long-term treatment can mark a consentable line even if not a substantial physical partition | Court: Trees were legally sufficient; no rule requires a fence; consentable line may be marked by trees |
| Whether there was 21 years of recognition and acquiescence to establish a consentable line | Dennis argued insufficient evidence of continuous 21-year acquiescence | Palman showed continuous maintenance and mutual recognition up to the trees since 1976; Dennis did not object until 2013 | Court: Sufficient evidence of recognition and acquiescence for statutory period; consentable line established |
| Whether the trial court’s factual finding was against the weight of the evidence | Dennis asserted the trial court’s credibility findings and boundary ruling were against the weight of evidence | Palman relied on trial court’s credibility determination and testimonial evidence of maintenance and statements by Dennis | Court: Appellate court defers to trial court on credibility and weight; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyatt Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, 976 A.2d 557 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of appellate review in non-jury trials)
- Niles v. Fall Creek Hunting Club, Inc., 545 A.2d 926 (Pa. Super. 1988) (doctrine of consentable line explained)
- Plauchak v. Boling, 653 A.2d 671 (Pa. Super. 1995) (consentable line may be proved by parol evidence and need not be a conveyance)
- Jedlicka v. Clemmer, 677 A.2d 1232 (Pa. Super. 1996) (consentable line may be established by trees, spikes, fences, or other markers)
- Moore v. Moore, 921 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2007) (elements for consentable line by acquiescence: claim and 21 years’ continuous occupation)
- Zeglin v. Gahagen, 812 A.2d 558 (Pa. 2002) (recognition that acquiescence for the statutory period quiets title)
- Corbin v. Cowan, 716 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 1998) (discussing consentable line and fence cases)