Leeper, R. v. Queer, W.
Leeper, R. v. Queer, W. No. 54 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 18, 2017Background
- Randy and Connie Leeper purchased an "11-acre" timber parcel by private tax deed in 1998 and sued in equity to quiet title to that 11-acre tract (part of an original 50-acre parcel).
- The Leepers claimed the 50-acre parcel had been double-assessed and the subject 11-acre parcel had been separately taxed and sold over time.
- At trial the Leepers presented testimony from a title searcher, a real-estate attorney, a surveyor, and Mr. Leeper about historical tax records, assessments, and field observations.
- Witnesses agreed title had passed via tax sale on paper, but no metes-and-bounds or legal description identifying the 11-acre parcel’s precise location within the 50-acre tract existed.
- The trial court granted a compulsory nonsuit, concluding the Leepers failed to prove a prima facie case identifying the exact location of the 11-acre parcel; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leepers own fee simple title to the 11-acre parcel | Leepers: tax deed and historical assessments established ownership of an 11-acre timber parcel derived from the 50-acre tract | Appellees: description lacks a legal metes-and-bounds or other definite identification; location is speculative | Court: No — Leepers failed to prove the parcel’s definite location; nonsuit affirmed |
| Whether compulsory nonsuit was improper given plaintiffs’ prima facie evidence | Leepers: their evidence (tax deed, title work, testimony, acreage) sufficed to identify the parcel | Appellees: evidence was insufficient and speculative; burden rests on plaintiff to show title | Court: Nonsuit proper — evidence left room only for speculation, not proof |
| Whether parol evidence and deed sufficed to describe parcel location | Leepers: deed plus parol (witness observations, tax maps) identified the parcel | Appellees: tax maps/parol cannot create a valid legal description in lieu of statutory identification | Court: Parol and tax-map evidence insufficient to fix boundaries or create good title |
| Whether trial court improperly relied on defendants’ evidence when granting nonsuit | Leepers: court relied on appellees’ records introduced on cross to deny title | Appellees: court relied on the insufficiency of plaintiffs’ proof; any reliance on additional records was harmless | Court: Any consideration of appellees’ records was harmless because the primary basis (imprecise description) independently supports affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- Billig v. Skvarla, 853 A.2d 1042 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard for reviewing compulsory nonsuit)
- Joyce v. Boulevard Therapy & Rehab. Ctr., P.C., 694 A.2d 648 (Pa. Super. 1997) (nonsuit review principles)
- Montrenes v. Montrenes, 513 A.2d 983 (Pa. Super. 1986) (plaintiff bears burden in quiet-title action; recovery only on strength of own title)
- Hunter v. McKlveen, 65 A.2d 366 (Pa. 1949) (tax sale invalid if description does not allow owner/public to determine what is sold)
- Sarous v. Morgan, 90 A.2d 353 (Pa. Super. 1952) (adequate identification required in tax-sale conveyances; urban/rural considerations)
- Blumenstock v. Gibson, 811 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)