Rizzardi, R. v. Spicer, R.
309 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- In 2003 Rizzardi purchased a 37.5-acre landlocked parcel in Warren County and used a tractor path across the Spicer Farm with prior owner Francis Spicer’s permission until permission was withdrawn in 2011 after alleged damage to the path.
- Rizzardi sued Spicer seeking access, asserting quiet title, ejectment, and prescriptive easement based on: (1) a deed provision reserving existing rights of way and (2) Pine Township Ordinance 2-1961 vacating a township road and granting adjoining landowners access.
- Trial evidence showed two historic township roads (an 1848 Green Line Road and an 1849 Red Line Road); township border changes and a 1961 Pine Grove ordinance affected which road was considered vacated.
- The trial court found the tractor path more likely the Red Line Road but, relying on the Private Road Act of 1929 (PRA), awarded Rizzardi the right to access his parcel via the Green Line Road (a private road subject to the PRA) and entered an order allowing access.
- On appeal Spicer argued the trial court exceeded the relief sought by applying the PRA sua sponte and that Rizzardi had not complied with PRA requirements or shown a public purpose for opening a private road.
- The Superior Court concluded the trial court erred in applying the PRA (it was neither pled nor proven and PRA procedures were not followed) but nevertheless affirmed the order granting Rizzardi access on an alternative equitable basis because the relief was consistent with the purpose of his pleadings and Spicer did not oppose access in principle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rizzardi) | Defendant's Argument (Spicer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could grant relief under the Private Road Act when Rizzardi did not plead a PRA petition | Relief to obtain access is appropriate; remedy may be fashioned to secure access | Trial court erred by applying PRA sua sponte; PRA relief was not pled or proven | Court: trial court erred to apply PRA (sua sponte) but affirmed access on equitable grounds consistent with pleaded purpose |
| Whether opening/maintaining a private road required proof that the public is primary beneficiary | Opening private road can be appropriate where access is needed; relief consistent with case theory | Rizzardi failed to show public as primary and paramount beneficiary as required by In re O’Reilly | Court declined to address merits after finding PRA wrongly applied; preserved challenge but affirmed overall relief on other grounds |
| Whether PRA statutory prerequisites were met before granting relief | (Implicit) Proper procedures unnecessary where equitable access remedy granted | PRA statutory procedures were not followed and Spicer had no notice to defend under PRA | Court held PRA procedures were not satisfied and trial court should not have applied PRA |
| Whether court may grant relief in equity different in form but consistent with pleaded purpose | General equitable relief may be fashioned to accomplish pleaded objective of continued access | Relief exceeded pleadings if based on unpled PRA claim | Court: equitable courts may grant relief consistent with theory/purpose of action; affirmed access as responsive to Rizzardi’s pleaded need |
Key Cases Cited
- Lilly v. Markvan, 763 A.2d 370 (Pa. 2000) (standard of review for equitable findings and conclusions)
- Makozy v. Makozy, 874 A.2d 1160 (Pa. Super. 2005) (equity court may grant relief not exactly requested if consistent with case pleaded)
- Lower Frederick Twp. v. Clemmer, 543 A.2d 502 (Pa. 1988) (a prayer for general equitable relief permits any relief consistent with theory and purpose of the action)
- William Penn School Dist. v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Education, 170 A.3d 414 (Pa. 2017) (quoting Lower Frederick on scope of equitable relief)
- North Mountain Water Supply Co. v. Troxell, 81 A. 157 (Pa. 1911) (equity cannot grant relief that exceeds that which was requested)
- In re Opening Private Road for Benefit of O’Reilly, 5 A.3d 246 (Pa. Super. 2010) (describing PRA framework and public-purpose considerations for opening private roads)
- Wakeley v. M.J. Brunner, Inc., 147 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record)