244 A.3d 1240
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- The parties' lots are part of the 1923 O’Leary subdivision plan, which plotted Coates Alley and King Alley and noted them “to be always open.” These alleys provide the only rear access to Lot 2 (433 Church St.), owned by Alex A. Pineda Jr. (Pineda).
- A 1968 Montgomery County quiet-title/order found Coates Alley to be mutually usable by owners of lots conveyed under the O’Leary Plan.
- After Pineda purchased Lot 2 in 2016, defendants (James & Andrea Perry, Sharon Perry, G. Philip & Deborah Brady, and Roxanne Roberto) erected fences and signs blocking access via Coates Alley and King Alley.
- Pineda filed a complaint and petition for preliminary and permanent injunction; after a nonjury hearing the trial court permanently enjoined the defendants from denying Pineda access and ordered removal of blocking structures.
- Defendants appealed; the Superior Court held the appeal was properly before it under Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4)(ii) (injunction changing the status quo before final judgment) and affirmed the permanent injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was Pineda entitled to injunctive relief to restore alley access? | Pineda: O’Leary plan grants an easement-of-access appurtenant to Lot 2; prior 1968 ruling supports mutual use. | Perrys/Bradys: Easement was extinguished by the Dillon deed, or by abandonment/adverse possession/merger; no right exists. | Affirmed. The subdivision "easement of access" belongs to lot owners and cannot be impaired by one owner; defenses like abandonment/adverse possession/merger inapplicable to this collective easement. |
| 2. Did the trial court violate due process by issuing a permanent injunction without an evidentiary hearing? | Pineda: Facts necessary to decide were in the record and undisputed; hearing and briefs sufficed. | Perrys/Bradys: Entry without evidentiary hearing, proof of clear right, or cross-examination denied due process and effected a taking. | Held for Pineda. The record established the material facts; the disputed defenses were legally inapplicable, so no further evidentiary hearing was required. |
| 3. Was the trial court’s jurisdiction defective for failure to join allegedly indispensable parties (e.g., Kerwins)? | Pineda: Order limited to owners within the O’Leary subdivision; non-owners (Kerwins) are outside scope. | Perrys/Bradys: Nonjoinder of allegedly indispensable adjacent owners deprived jurisdiction. | Held for Pineda. The injunction applied only to named defendants/owners in the O’Leary plan; Kerwins (outside the plan) were not indispensable and jurisdiction was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Starling v. Lake Meade Property Owners Ass'n, Inc., 162 A.3d 327 (Pa. 2017) (subdivision purchasers acquire an easement-of-access appurtenant to lots; such easements cannot be impaired without compensation)
- Starling v. Lake Meade Property Owners Ass'n, Inc., 121 A.3d 1021 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discussing private easement rights from recorded subdivision plans)
- Potis v. Coon, 496 A.2d 1188 (Pa. Super. 1985) (grantee of lot sold according to a subdivision plan acquires easement over plotted streets/alleys)
- Minard Run Oil Co. v. Pennzoil Co., 214 A.2d 234 (Pa. 1965) (servient-owner may use land so long as it does not interfere with easement holder’s rights)
- Chambersburg Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Cumberland Valley R.R. Co., 87 A. 968 (Pa. 1913) (an easement of access created by a grantor’s plat is a property right appurtenant to the lot owners)