Haan, D. and P. v. Wells, J.
103 A.3d 60
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Haans sued Wells to enjoin trespass on Encroachment Areas #1 and #2, based on Haans’ survey showing ownership of those areas; Wells claimed ownership of Parcel No. 2 and erected a gate and signs on that land; expert surveyors disputed boundaries due to overlapping warrants and flawed early surveys; the trial court entered a non-jury verdict finding Haans owned Encroachment Areas #1 and #2 and Wells owned Parcel No. 2, and ordered removal of the gate and signs; Haans moved for post-trial relief asserting multiple challenges to the verdict and the Wells’ ownership of Parcel No. 2; the trial court deemed some issues waived but nevertheless addressed the merits, and the court ultimately denied post-trial relief, affirming the verdict; Haans appealed to challenge waiver rulings and the weight and credibility of the evidence supporting Wells’ ownership of Parcel No. 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of sufficiency challenge | Haans maintained sufficiency challenge to Wells’ Parcel No. 2 ownership was preserved | Wells argued sufficiency challenge was waived for lack of directed verdict/nonsuit at trial | Sufficiency challenges were waived; weight challenges preserved |
| Weight of the evidence | Haans contend the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and credibility determinations were flawed | Wells defends trial court’s credibility findings and the weight of the Hennemuth survey | Court did not abuse discretion; weight claim upheld for appellate review |
| Credibility and reliance on Hennemuth survey | Haans argue Hennemuth’s testimony lacked factual basis and should not support Wells’ ownership | Wells contends Hennemuth’s experience and full survey basis justify reliance | Trial court’s credibility determinations supported by record; no abuse of discretion |
| Survey integration and boundary evidence | Haans claim the court selectively used parts of the survey to support Wells’ ownership | Wells argue integrated survey supports ownership and courts may weigh conflicting survey evidence | Court properly weighed survey parts; no reversible error in selective use of survey |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennyhoff v. Pappert, 790 A.2d 313 (Pa. Super. 2001) (preservation of sufficiency challenges requires a directed verdict or nonsuit)
- Estate of Hicks v. Dana Companies, LLC, 984 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2009) (preservation of post-trial JNOV based on weight/sufficiency varies; weight preserved post-verdict)
- Com. Dept. of Gen. Servs. v. U.S. Mineral Prods. Co., 927 A.2d 717 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (directed verdict prerequisite to post-trial JNOV for sufficiency challenges)
- Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Wapner, 903 A.2d 565 (Pa. Super. 2006) (directed verdict requirement to preserve post-trial JNOV)
- Hayes v. Donohue Designer Kitchen Inc., 818 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2003) (preservation of post-verdict JNOV relies on directed verdict at trial)
- Criswell v. King, 834 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2003) (weight-of-evidence claim ripens after verdict)
- Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 34 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2011) (credibility and weight determinations lie with fact-finder)
- Turney Media Fuel, Inc. v. Toll Brothers, Inc., 725 A.2d 836 (Pa. Super. 1999) (credibility and conflicts in testimony are for the trial court)
- In re Estate of Smaling, 80 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for reviewing weight of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (ultimate standard for weight-of-evidence review)