DeSimone, S. v. Kessler, G., DeSimone, S. v. Kessler, G. No. 491 MDA 2016

Neighbors executed a written Right of Way Agreement (Dec. 7, 2004) granting the DeSimones (owners of Lot #5) the right to use a driveway on the Kesslers’ property (Lot #1) "up to their current gravel driveway"; the right of way is to remain owned by the Kesslers.
Agreement limited the width to "no greater than the current width of their driveway serving Lot #5," left maintenance discretionary with the Kesslers, and included a clause prohibiting DeSimones from granting additional rights to third parties without Kessler consent.
Dispute arose after the Kesslers restricted access (constructing a ditch, placing iron poles, etc.), allegedly reducing the entrance width and limiting deliveries and access; DeSimones sued to quiet title, for trespass, and to confirm easement rights; Kesslers counterclaimed for ejectment and trespass related to a septic sand mound.
After unsuccessful mediation, the trial court conducted a two‑day non‑jury trial, issued findings and a non‑jury verdict for the DeSimones, holding that the Agreement created an express easement and that the DeSimones retain reasonable prior use (including third‑party access consistent with historical use).
The Kesslers’ post‑trial motion was denied; they appealed raising (1) ownership/interest determination, (2) alleged ambiguity of the right‑of‑way, and (3) scope of third‑party use under the Agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Agreement created an express easement	DeSimone: the written instrument is an express grant of a right of way to Lot #5	Kessler: dispute over ownership/interests and characterization	Court: Agreement is a written conveyance creating an express easement; affirmed
Scope/width of the easement and ambiguity	DeSimone: grant should be construed to allow reasonable use up to the historical driveway width; survey evidence shows prior 21' entrance	Kessler: language ambiguous and trial court misweighed evidence about width; construction/obstructions narrowed access	Court: grant language partially ambiguous; construed in favor of grantee; credited surveyor Hennemuth and found entrance narrowed by Kessler actions but easement remains and width determined by credible surveyor testimony
Whether DeSimones may allow third‑party use of the right of way	DeSimone: historical unrestricted use by invitees, delivery and service vehicles is within reasonable use	Kessler: clause prohibits DeSimone from granting additional rights to third parties without Kessler consent; court should enforce that restriction	Court: Interpreting instrument and circumstances, historical third‑party use was known and reasonable; easement permits typical third‑party access (guests, delivery, service) and is not expanded by DeSimone beyond prior use; trial court’s construction affirmed

Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, Ltd., 886 A.2d 667 (Pa. 2005) (defines easement as an interest in another’s land for a limited purpose)
Amerikohl Mining Co. v. Peoples Natural Gas Co., 860 A.2d 547 (Pa. Super. 2004) (right of way is an easement that may be created by express grant)
Lease v. Doll, 403 A.2d 558 (Pa. 1979) (ambiguous express easements are construed in favor of the grantee and allow reasonable use)