Gurecka, F. v. Carroll, R., 155 A.3d 1071

Background

Gurecka owned a “high-side” lot that was served by a sewer lateral running downhill across the Carrolls’ adjoining "low-side" lot; no express easement was recorded in any deeds or the subdivision plan.
The sewer line had existed and been used continuously for ~50 years; multiple manhole covers were visible on the Carrolls’ property.
During a municipal dye test before a sale, a blockage in Gurecka’s sewer lateral was discovered and repair work began on the Carrolls’ land; the Carrolls told the plumber to stop and ordered him off their property.
A preliminary injunction (Dec. 2, 2011) authorized reasonable repairs pending litigation; Gurecka later sought a permanent injunction to protect repair and continued use of the sewer.
The trial court granted a permanent injunction, concluding an implied easement existed; the Superior Court initially reversed but then reheard the case en banc and affirmed the trial court’s order.

Issues

Issue	Gurecka's Argument	Carrolls' Argument	Held
Whether an implied easement exists over Carrolls’ land for Gurecka’s sewer lateral	The sewer was installed while both properties were commonly owned, its use was continuous and permanent, and it was necessary for beneficial use of Gurecka’s lot — thus an implied easement was created at severance	No express easement in any deed or plan; Carrolls and predecessors lacked knowledge of the lateral; they can access the public sewer via the public right-of-way downhill, so no implied easement should be found	Court held an implied easement existed and bound the Carrolls (traditional three-prong test satisfied)
Whether the sewer was "open, visible, and permanent" (notice/prudent-investigation standard)	Visible manholes and the sewer network on the Carrolls’ lot put purchasers on notice of a sewer system crossing the property; prior continuous use made the servitude apparent	The underground lateral itself had no above-ground features and was unknown to current and prior owners; visible manholes did not provide actual notice of another property’s private lateral	Court held the visible manhole array provided notice of a sewer network and satisfied the open/visible requirement; implied easement therefore binding
Whether the easement was necessary to benefit Gurecka’s property	The lateral was necessary for the high-side lot’s connection to sewer before public access existed; continuous self-acting use shows it was intended to be permanent	Carrolls argued alternative public sewer access existed downhill and across the road, so implied easement not necessary	Court found the lateral was necessary to the beneficial enjoyment at the time of severance and part of continuous permanent use, satisfying necessity prong
Whether permanent injunction was appropriate relief	Gurecka sought an injunction to prevent future interference with repair/use of the lateral because monetary relief was inadequate	Carrolls argued property-use impairment and alternative means of access made injunction unnecessary	Court issued permanent injunction; equitable relief proper where implied easement established and alternative legal remedies inadequate

Key Cases Cited

Griffith v. Kirsch, 886 A.2d 249 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review for equity findings)
Daddona v. Thorpe, 749 A.2d 475 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discussion of implied easement tests and Restatement considerations)
Tosh v. Witts, 113 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1955) (statement of factors supporting implied reservation of easement)
Bucciarelli v. DeLisa, 691 A.2d 446 (Pa. 1997) (importance of prior use and notice in implied-easement analysis)
Burns Mfg. v. Boehm, 356 A.2d 763 (Pa. 1976) (precedent on implied easements and unity-of-title principles)
Mann-Hoff v. Boyer, 604 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 1992) (treatment of Restatement factors alongside traditional test)
Thomas v. Deliere, 359 A.2d 398 (Pa. Super. 1976) (adoption of Restatement approach in analysis)
Motel 6 v. Pfile, 718 F.2d 80 (3d Cir. 1983) (recognizing open/visible requirement can be met for subsurface sewers despite lack of visible pipes)
Buffalo Twp. v. Jones, 813 A.2d 659 (Pa. 2002) (standards for permanent injunction relief)
Watts v. Manheim Twp. Sch. Dist., 121 A.3d 964 (Pa. 2015) (de novo review when permanent injunction based on agreed facts)