Lankard, C. v. Laurel Mountain
Lankard, C. v. Laurel Mountain No. 1367 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Carolyn and Robert Lankard own a ~15-acre Greene County property; dispute centers on a natural gas pipeline and associated valve installed on the eastern side of the property.
- In June 2011 Mrs. Lankard signed a recorded Easement and a Separate Letter Agreement (SLA) granting Laurel Mountain a right-of-way for pipeline installation; plaintiffs claim an additional unsigned SLA (signed only by Mrs. Lankard) contained different terms.
- Pipeline was surveyed, installed (completed ~Sept. 2012), and plaintiff accepted at least some payments (including a $2,000 payment for additional workspace and a prior $450 item referenced in the signed SLA).
- Plaintiffs sued (amended complaint) asserting breach of contract, trespass/continuing trespass, conversion, fraud/misrepresentation, ejectment, private nuisance, and equitable accounting; several claims were dismissed earlier and ejectment was not preserved on appeal.
- After discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment; trial court granted the motion (Aug. 25, 2016), concluding the written Easement and signed SLA controlled, parol evidence was barred, defendant acted pursuant to the Easement/SLA, and no genuine issues of material fact remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parol evidence (unsigned SLA / prior negotiations) can alter the written Easement/SLA | Lankard: an unsigned SLA (signed by Mrs. Lankard) and contemporaneous representations by defendant's agent show different terms and misleading inducement, so parol evidence should be admissible | Laurel Mountain: signed Easement and SLA are integrated, control, and bar parol evidence that contradicts the written agreements | Court: Parol evidence barred; integrated written contracts control; plaintiffs bound by executed documents |
| Breach of contract: whether pipeline/valve placement and tree removal violated the Easement/SLA | Lankard: pipeline and aboveground valve encroached outside easement, reclamation and tree removal breached terms | Laurel Mountain: installation followed the signed Easement/SLA and related documents; payments and signed receipts reflect agreed workspace and compensation | Court: No breach as a matter of law; summary judgment for defendant because written terms were followed |
| Trespass / conversion: whether defendant's actions were unlawful intrusions or wrongful conversion of timber | Lankard: installation and removal of locust trees constituted trespass and conversion | Laurel Mountain: actions privileged by the valid Easement/SLA and gave lawful justification and consent | Court: Claims fail because the Easement/SLA granted the right of entry and consent; no unlawful trespass or conversion |
| Fraud / misrepresentation and spoliation arguments | Lankard: agent misled Mrs. Lankard (inducement) and defendant spoliated evidence, which should prevent summary judgment | Laurel Mountain: no actionable fraud because written contract contradicts alleged oral promises; discovery was complete and court found no spoliation sanction warranted | Court: Fraud claim barred by parol-evidence principles (only fraud in execution would be admissible); spoliation argument insufficient to preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Mull v. Ickes, 994 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Zettlemoyer v. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Co., 657 A.2d 920 (Pa. 1995) (same rules of construction apply to easement grants as to contracts)
- McGuire v. Schneider, Inc., 534 A.2d 115 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987) (parol evidence doctrine bars prior oral representations that contradict an integrated written contract)
- Bardwell v. Willis Co., 100 A.2d 102 (Pa. 1953) (parol evidence admissible only to prove fraud in execution, not inducement, when writings contradict oral assertions)
- Nicolella v. Palmer, 248 A.2d 20 (Pa. 1968) (reaffirming strict application of parol evidence rule)
- Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Wiech, 781 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001) (spoliation doctrine and trial court sanctioning discretion)