Lang, D. v. Shaffer
Lang, D. v. Shaffer No. 642 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- Disputed Tract lies along the western bank of Pine Creek, with adjoining properties on opposite banks.
- Wolfe Survey (1976) described the adjacent parcels as including the Disputed Tract, shifting the boundary west across Pine Creek.
- Appellee and her former spouse bought the western side in 1981 and later deeded to Appellee; she believed title extended to Pine Creek.
- Appellee used and maintained the Disputed Tract since 1981, asserting ownership by adverse possession.
- The trial court initially found no ownership claim by Appellees; on remand, the issue of possession and the proper action (ejectment vs. quiet title) became central.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellee had possession sufficient to support ejectment. | Lang contends she possessed the Disputed Tract as of filing. | Shaffer argues Lang’s possession is insufficient or not of the Disputed Tract. | Lang was in possession as of filing; ejectment jurisdiction hinges on possession status. |
| Proper remedy given possession—ejectment or quiet title under Rule 1061. | Lang seeks ejectment based on possession. | Appellants contend ejectment should be by in-possession party against out-of-possession party. | Remand required to determine possession and to compel an ejectment action if appropriate under Rule 1061(b)(1). |
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction to enter ejectment where appellee was the possessor. | Lang’s possession supports ejectment against Appellants. | If possessor sues, ejectment is improper; possessory status controls jurisdiction. | Trial court had no jurisdiction to enter ejectment given Lang’s possession; must remand for proper proceeding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Siskos v. Britz, 790 A.2d 1000 (Pa. 2002) (distinguishes ejectment from quiet title and governs possessory actions)
- Brennan v. Shore Bros., 110 A.2d 401 (Pa. 1955) (possession and immediate right to possession are central to ejectment jurisdiction)
- Seven Springs Farm, Inc. v. King, 344 A.2d 641 (Pa. Super. 1975) (ejectment focuses on possession at filing; merits deferred)
- Kaminski Bros., Inc. v. Grassi, 352 A.2d 80 (Pa. Super. 1975) (adverse possession defenses may be raised in ejectment)