145 A.3d 1217
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Long Run Timber (Company) sued to quiet title to ~56.97 acres in Tioga County, disputing the boundary between Warrant 1179 (Company) and Warrant 1180 (DCNR). The State Board of Property dismissed Company’s complaint; Company appealed.
- Original 1793 Ellis surveys and patents described adjacent rectangular warrants and corner trees; Ellis’s drawing showed a waterway crossing near the NW corner of Warrant 1179.
- Subsequent chain of title: Bingham Estate conveyed portions including the Repherd Tract (circa 1850); later deeds (Blossburg 1875, Hoyt 1882) referenced the Repherd Tract as a common adjoiner. Stone piles and other monuments appear in later surveys and maps.
- Multiple surveys conflict: Otto (1910) and Fine (1952) locate the waterway near Warrant 1179’s NW corner and identify stone piles consistent with the Repherd Tract; Bietsch (1952) and Company’s 2004 Cunningham survey place the waterway further south and rely on the then-current southern line of Warrant 1179.
- The Board credited DCNR’s experts and the Otto/Fine/Ellis evidence (natural monument — waterway — and artificial monuments — stone piles on the Repherd Tract) and rejected Bietsch and Cunningham as not credible, locating the dividing line along the southern boundary of the disputed parcel in favor of DCNR.
- The Board declined to find a binding settlement ("Compromise Line") between the Commonwealth and a prior owner (Niles) because no recorded deed was produced; the Commonwealth Court remanded for the Board to consider Company’s parol evidence of a consentable line.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board erred by using a natural monument not in the original patent and artificial monuments on a subsequently conveyed tract to fix the boundary | Company: Patents' calls (courses, distances, adjoiner) are consistent; monuments not in the patent cannot displace courses/distance — Board should have measured from known southern boundary of John Barron warrants | DCNR: Ellis drawing, Bingham survey notes, Otto/Fine surveys and Repherd monuments consistently locate waterway and stone piles; current southern line is unreliable due to encroachment | Held for DCNR — Board properly relied on natural/artificial monuments and the chain of surveys/deeds; substantial evidence supports that monuments control over courses and distances here |
| Whether Board's boundary determination is supported by substantial evidence | Company: waterway and Repherd location are uncertain; Fine/Bietsch/Cunningham evidence undermines DCNR surveys; hearsay was used to discredit Bietsch; two Board members missed live testimony of Cunningham | DCNR: Board weighed conflicting surveys and credibility; multiple historic surveys and Bingham notes corroborate DCNR position; administrative factfinding limits appellate review | Held for DCNR on substantial-evidence challenges — Board’s credibility and weight determinations are supported by record and are for fact-finder |
| Whether Board improperly relied on hearsay to reject Bietsch survey | Company: memo quoting Rex about Bietsch is hearsay and inadmissible basis to discredit Bietsch | DCNR: other objective discrepancies (waterway location, lack of Repherd references) provided sufficient bases to reject Bietsch | Held for DCNR — even if the memo were hearsay, Board gave independent, objective reasons to discredit Bietsch |
| Whether there was a binding "Compromise Line" (consentable line) between Commonwealth and Niles | Company: parol evidence (1969 map, tax records, Niles deposition, photos of paint blazes) shows dispute/compromise or recognition/acquiescence sufficient to establish a consentable line | DCNR: record only shows settlement discussions or offers; no proof Commonwealth agreed to or adopted the Compromise Line | Held for Company (procedural): remand ordered — Board must consider Company’s parol evidence and determine whether a consentable line was established (either by dispute/compromise or recognition/acquiescence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Roslyn Swim Club, 213 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. 1965) (monuments generally control over courses and distances in boundary disputes)
- Pencil v. Buchart, 551 A.2d 302 (Pa. Super. 1988) (rules of monument hierarchy are aids to ascertain grantor intent and monuments erected later may be used if intended to conform to deed)
- Post v. Wilkes-Barre Connecting R.R. Co., 133 A. 377 (Pa. 1926) (monument rule yields where monument would lead to absurd result)
- Niles v. Fall Creek Hunting Club, Inc., 545 A.2d 926 (Pa. Super. 1988) (surveyor declarations and consentable line principles in boundary cases)
- Plauchak v. Boling, 653 A.2d 671 (Pa. Super. 1995) (doctrine of consentable line — proof by parol; dispute/compromise and recognition/acquiescence formulations)