J&D Brothers, Inc. v. Crist, O.
562 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 26, 2017Background
- J&D Brothers, Inc. (Appellant) sought declaratory judgment that it possessed a prescriptive easement over Beacon Road across its property, related to a communications tower leased to AT&T.
- Trial court found a prescriptive easement existed and initially limited Appellant’s "unobstructed use" to "a reasonable number of times two days per month," but allowed unrestricted use for road maintenance and limited recreational use.
- Appellant appealed; this Court (Nov. 4, 2015) found the trial court erred by restricting access needed for emergency repairs and for changes required by law, and remanded for a limited purpose to address those concerns.
- On remand the trial court issued an order clarifying that the two-days-per-month limitation did not apply to emergency repairs or changes required by changes in law.
- Appellant appealed again, arguing the remand and the trial court’s order improperly limited 24/7 access that existed during the prescriptive period.
- The Superior Court reviewed de novo whether the trial court complied with the limited scope of the appellate remand and affirmed the trial court’s post-remand order as within the remand’s scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by limiting unobstructed use of easement to "reasonable number of times two days per month" for tower-related purposes | J&D: Limitation creates access constraints not present during the prescriptive period; remand should restore 24/7 access | Opposing parties: Trial court’s limitation (except for emergency/changes of law) is permissible | Court: Limitation largely beyond scope of remand; only remand-identified concerns (emergency repairs and compliance-of-law changes) had to be addressed — trial court complied and order affirmed |
| Whether limiting access conflicts with finding of unlimited access during prescriptive period | J&D: Prescriptive use was unrestricted; post-remand restriction contradicts status quo | Opposing parties: Remand limited to addressing emergency and legal-compliance access only | Court: Challenge to broader restrictions is beyond scope of limited remand and not reviewable; remand compliance was proper |
| Whether remand required full restoration of 24/7 access | J&D: Remand should restore full prescriptive access for all tower needs | Opposing parties: Remand was narrow; court need only ensure access for emergencies and legal-required changes | Court: Remand was limited; trial court properly implemented narrow relief requested by appellate memorandum |
| Whether trial court properly exempted emergency repairs and law-driven changes from the two-day limit | J&D: (argued for broader exemption) | Opposing parties: Trial court’s exemptions satisfy remand concerns | Court: Affirmed — trial court’s order explicitly exempts emergency repairs and changes necessitated by law as the remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lokuta, 11 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2011) (scope-of-remand questions are matters of law reviewed de novo)
- Schwartz v. Rockey, 932 A.2d 885 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for legal questions: de novo with plenary scope)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 877 A.2d 471 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court must strictly comply with appellate mandate on remand)
- Commonwealth v. Tick, Inc., 246 A.2d 424 (Pa. 1968) (duty of court on remand to proceed consistently with appellate views)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 789 A.2d 252 (Pa. Super. 2001) (when remand is limited, only matters related to remand issue may be appealed)