249 A.3d 1240
Pa. Commw. Ct.2021Background
- Disputed Strip: a 30-foot-wide former Kensington & Tacony Railroad (K&T) right-of-way in northeast Philadelphia, bounded by Newman-owned parcels on both sides and containing a railroad track.
- K&T acquired two portions by deed: an 1887 Baldwin Deed and a 1891 Porter Deed; both deeds used language conveying "strip/piece of land" and contained habendum/tenendum/warranty clauses and significant consideration.
- Conrail (successor to K&T) ceased service in 1983 and quitclaimed the former railroad property, including the Disputed Strip, to the City in 2006; the City intends a rails-to-trails project on the strip.
- Newman owns adjacent parcels by later deeds that reference the Disputed Strip as a boundary but do not include the strip in the metes-and-bounds descriptions or reserve any reversionary interest or easement.
- Newman sued to quiet title, obtain an easement, and enjoin the City; the trial court ruled for the City (April 12, 2019), denied Newman’s post-trial motion (March 6, 2020), and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Newman owns the Disputed Strip in fee simple | Baldwin and Porter deeds created only an easement/right-of-way (railroad/highway), so abandonment returned fee to adjacent owners | Baldwin and Porter deeds conveyed fee simple to K&T (words, clauses, consideration), so Conrail could convey fee to City | Court: Deeds convey fee simple to K&T; Conrail could convey fee to City (Newman not fee owner) |
| Whether highway presumption gives Newman title to center line after abandonment | Railroad is a public highway; abandonment presumptively vests fee to center line of highway to adjacent owners | Baldwin/Porter grant preceded Newman’s title, so original grantors had no title to convey center line; Newman cannot claim center line | Court: Highway presumption inapplicable because grantors had already conveyed fee to K&T before Newman acquired adjacent land |
| Whether Newman has an easement under the (now‑repealed) Railroad Act | Railroad Act required private crossings where land was severed, so Newman is entitled to an easement/crossing | Railroad Act applies to takings by eminent domain, not to contractual conveyances; Baldwin/Porter were contractual grants, so Act inapplicable | Court: Railroad Act does not apply; Newman not entitled to easement under it |
| Whether Newman has an easement by necessity or by implication | Newman’s parcels are landlocked or need access; Porter/Baldwin terms and historic crossings imply an easement | No unity of title at time necessity arose; riverfront access and other streets existed; Porter clause (temporary crossings) does not create permanent implied easement | Court: No easement by necessity or implication; trial court properly denied opportunity claim because no proffered evidence would change result |
Key Cases Cited
- Fleck v. Universal-Cyclops Steel Corp., 156 A.2d 832 (Pa. 1959) (presumption that grant abutting public highway conveys fee to center line; railroad treated as highway)
- Brookbank v. Benedum Trees Oil Co., 131 A.2d 103 (Pa. 1957) (text‑of‑deed factors to determine fee vs. right‑of‑way conveyance)
- Dellach v. DeNinno, 862 A.2d 117 (Pa. Super. 2004) (abandoned railroad easement vests fee in adjacent owners under highway presumption)
- Bartkowski v. Ramondo, 219 A.3d 1083 (Pa. 2019) (elements required for an easement by necessity)
- Youst v. Keck’s Food Serv., Inc., 94 A.3d 1057 (Pa. Super. 2014) (three elements for easement by necessity)
- Estate of Spickler v. County of Lancaster Bd. of Comm’rs, 577 A.2d 923 (Pa. Super. 1990) (discussion of private crossings under Railroad Act in takings context)
- Del., Lackawanna & W. R.R. Co. v. Shuman, 115 A.2d 161 (Pa. 1955) (former Railroad Act requirement for construction of crossings applies when land was taken)