120 A.3d 1008
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- In 1994 Conrail conveyed the 30-foot-wide Avis rail right-of-way to South Avis Realty by quitclaim deed; the railbed runs through property now owned by Henry Street (PA Energy Vision, LLC and BLG Leasing).
- Three crossings existed over the Avis line; Crossing 2 (38 feet wide) had been used since about 1984 by Henry Street’s predecessor to move modular homes and heavy equipment.
- In 2012 South Avis hired a contractor to repair the track; the contractor removed rails and removed Crossings 2 and 3 during repairs; South Avis directed the contractor not to restore Crossing 2 because of a payment dispute with Henry Street.
- Henry Street obtained an interim order requiring restoration and cost-splitting; a 20-foot precast concrete crossing was installed at a cost of $28,940; the trial court later issued a final decree finding Henry Street had an "equitable right" to use Crossing 2 and permanently enjoined South Avis from interfering, but ordered Henry Street to pay full restoration costs.
- South Avis appealed the injunction; Henry Street cross-appealed the cost allocation. The Superior Court reversed the permanent injunction because Henry Street failed to prove a legal right to the crossing; Henry Street’s cross-appeal on costs was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Henry Street had a legal right (statutory or common-law) to continue using Crossing 2 and thus was entitled to a permanent injunction | Henry Street argued rights derive from the Railroad Act, prescriptive easement/adverse possession, laches/estoppel/waiver, or as a third-party beneficiary of Conrail’s 1994 deed; trial court found an "equitable right" from the deed | South Avis argued no legal theory supports Henry Street’s use: Railroad Act repealed as to crossings established after 1978, railroad right-of-way cannot be acquired by prescription/adverse possession, deed language did not create third-party beneficiary rights | Reversed: Henry Street failed to establish any legal entitlement to Crossing 2; equitable "right" based solely on deed language was insufficient to prove title or a legal right to injunctive relief |
| Whether the Railroad Act (1849) provided Henry Street a vested right to Crossing 2 | Henry Street urged the Act or its principles applied to protect the crossing | South Avis argued the Act was repealed in 1978 and Crossing 2 was established after repeal, so the Act does not apply | Held: The Act did not apply because Crossing 2 postdated repeal; court declined to adopt the repealed statute into common law |
| Whether Henry Street could acquire a prescriptive easement or use adverse possession to secure Crossing 2 | Henry Street claimed continuous open use met the 21-year prescriptive requirement | South Avis argued a railroad right-of-way is impressed with public use and cannot be lost by prescription or adverse possession while held by a railroad (Conrail) prior to 1994 | Held: Prescriptive easement/adverse possession unavailable because land within a railroad right-of-way cannot be acquired by prescription while held for public use; Henry Street could not tack pre-1994 time when Conrail owned the line |
| Whether Henry Street was a third-party beneficiary of the Conrail–South Avis deed | Henry Street argued the deed’s "subject to" language and visible crossing put South Avis on notice and created rights | South Avis argued the deed did not name Henry Street or express intent to confer third-party beneficiary status; any benefit is incidental | Held: No third-party beneficiary status; the deed’s "subject to" clause did not create a vested crossing right for Henry Street |
Key Cases Cited
- Liberty Place Retail Assocs., L.P. v. Israelite Sch. of Universal Practical Knowledge, 102 A.3d 501 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for permanent injunction; question of law reviewed de novo)
- Den-Tal-Ez, Inc. v. Siemens Capital Corp., 566 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Super. 1989) (permanent injunction supersedes preliminary injunction)
- Estate of Spickler v. Lancaster Bd. of Comm'rs, 577 A.2d 923 (Pa. Super. 1990) (Railroad Act rights that vested before repeal may survive)
- Burkett v. Smyder, 535 A.2d 671 (Pa. Super. 1988) (elements required to establish prescriptive easement)
- A. D. Graham & Co. v. Pa. Turnpike Comm'n, 33 A.2d 22 (Pa. 1943) (railroad right-of-way impressed with public use; no prescription against it)
- Williamstown Borough Authority v. Cooper, 591 A.2d 711 (Pa. Super. 1991) (laches/estoppel cannot succeed where adverse possession would fail)
- Williams v. Bridy, 136 A.2d 832 (Pa. 1957) (equity will not determine legal title where title is the kernel of the dispute)
- Ohringer Home Furniture Co. v. Hollingsworth, 100 A.2d 62 (Pa. 1953) (equity not proper to resolve disputes over legal title to property)