Rachel Carson Trails Conservancy, Inc. v. Dep't of Conservation & Natural Res. of Pa.
201 A.3d 273
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Rachel Carson Trails Conservancy (Conservancy), a volunteer nonprofit stewarding the Baker Trail, sued seeking a declaratory judgment that a public prescriptive easement exists along a half-mile section of River Lane in Clarion County used as part of the Baker Trail.
- River Lane traverses parcels owned by several private landowners and two adjoining parcels owned by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR).
- Conservancy alleges open, notorious, continuous public use and maintenance of the trail/blazes since the 1950s and at least 21 years of uninterrupted public use.
- Private landowners attempted to block access beginning about 2011; Conservancy previously sued in Clarion County, which dismissed for failure to join DCNR as an indispensable party.
- Conservancy then filed in Commonwealth Court joining DCNR; DCNR filed preliminary objections arguing prescriptive easement claims cannot be maintained against the Commonwealth and that the Court lacks jurisdiction.
- Commonwealth Court sustained DCNR’s preliminary objection (holding prescriptive easements cannot be obtained against Commonwealth land), dismissed DCNR as a respondent, and transferred the case and remaining objections to the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County for lack of original jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a public prescriptive easement can be obtained against DCNR/Commonwealth property | Conservancy acknowledged prescriptive easements cannot be obtained against DCNR but joined DCNR as indispensable and relied on DCNR’s stated willingness not to oppose trail use | DCNR argued prescriptive easement claims are barred against Commonwealth property (analogous to adverse possession) | Held: Prescriptive easements cannot be maintained against Commonwealth property; claim against DCNR is legally insufficient and dismissed |
| Whether DCNR is an indispensable party requiring Commonwealth Court jurisdiction | Conservancy argued DCNR owns parcels at each end of River Lane, so meaningful relief requires DCNR’s joinder | DCNR argued its interests are tangential; because prescriptive easement cannot be imposed on DCNR, its rights would not be impaired | Held: DCNR is not indispensable; its ownership and acquiescence are too tangential/minimal to require joinder |
| Whether Commonwealth Court has original jurisdiction over the action | Conservancy relied on original jurisdiction because it named DCNR | DCNR and court authorities: Commonwealth Court only has original jurisdiction over suits against the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth is an indispensable party | Held: Because DCNR is not indispensable and was dismissed, Commonwealth Court lacks original jurisdiction; matter transferred to Clarion County Common Pleas |
| Standing / ability of a private nonprofit to assert a public prescriptive easement on behalf of the public; and related private-landowner objections (easement in gross, specificity) | Conservancy asserts stewardship and public use support its claim for a public prescriptive easement | Private landowners argued Conservancy lacks standing to assert a public easement, that easements in gross cannot be acquired by prescription, and that pleading is insufficiently specific | Held: Court did not decide these issues; they were left to the Court of Common Pleas after transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Morning Call, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic–Pennsylvania Inc., 761 A.2d 139 (Pa. Super. 2000) (prescriptive easement acquisition is analogous to adverse possession)
- Department of Transportation v. J.W. Bishop & Company, Inc., 439 A.2d 101 (Pa. 1981) (adverse possession claims do not lie against Commonwealth property)
- Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Diamond Fuel Company, 346 A.2d 788 (Pa. 1975) (fee owner of servient tenement is an indispensable party in easement disputes)
- Barren v. Dubas, 441 A.2d 1315 (Pa. Super. 1982) (all servient tenement owners must be joined when existence of easement is disputed)
- Ballroom, LLC v. Commonwealth, 984 A.2d 582 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (Commonwealth is indispensable only when meaningful relief cannot be afforded without it)
- Perkasie Borough Authority v. Hilltown Township Water and Sewer Authority, 819 A.2d 597 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (Commonwealth agency not indispensable where its role is minimal)
- City of Lebanon v. Commonwealth, 912 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (Commonwealth Court original jurisdiction requires indispensable Commonwealth party)