Stark v. Equitable Gas Company, LLC
116 A.3d 760
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- In 1983 Landowners (Starks) acquired Stark 1, whose deed described the west boundary as the northerly right-of-way line of an unnamed 40-foot "paper" street; earlier deeds (1971, 1975, 1982) used similar language.
- In 1992 Norwin School District granted Equitable a right-of-way to install a 10-inch gas pipeline "along the eastern edge" of the School District’s 40-foot private road; Equitable installed the line that year.
- Landowners later acquired the adjoining parcel (Stark 2) in 2007; a 2007 survey by Dennis Dull concluded the Starks’ boundaries extended to the centerline of the paper street, placing the pipeline on Stark 1.
- Landowners filed a trespass suit in 2009 and a Petition alleging a de facto taking in 2013; the trespass action was withdrawn and a Board of Viewers was appointed.
- Equitable filed preliminary objections arguing (inter alia) Landowners were not record owners when the line was installed, the claim was time‑barred, and Landowners failed to state a de facto taking of the entire property.
- The trial court overruled Equitable’s objections (finding competent evidence that the Starks’ boundary reached the centerline and applying a 21‑year limitations period); the Commonwealth Court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Landowners own the land where the pipeline was laid in 1992? | Starks: survey evidence shows their title extended to centerline of paper street, so pipeline is on their land. | Equitable: deed language fixes Stark 1 boundary at the northerly line of the paper street (not center), so Starks weren’t owners of the taken land in 1992. | Court: Trial court’s factual finding that boundary extended to centerline is supported by competent evidence (survey, deeds, tax map, and location of pipeline); appellate court will not reweigh. |
| Is the Petition time‑barred? | Starks: governed by former 21‑year statute for de facto takings (42 Pa.C.S. §5530(a)(3)), so timely. | Equitable: limitations period (former 5‑year provision or other limitations) bars the claim. | Court: Trial court correctly applied the 21‑year limitations provision to a de facto taking; Petition not time‑barred. |
| Did Landowners plead a de facto taking of their entire property? | Starks: placement of pipeline deprived them of use/enjoyment and effectuated a de facto taking. | Equitable: even if Starks have some interest, they failed to plead a taking of the entire property as required. | Court: Sufficiency and extent of the taking are matters for the Board of Viewers to determine; preliminary objection overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Roslyn Swim Club, 213 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. 1965) (artificial monuments generally control but courses and distances may prevail when monuments are doubtful or inconsistent)
- Gramlich v. Lower Southampton Township, 838 A.2d 843 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (distinguishing street/right‑of‑way concepts and title to centerline upon acceptance)
- Pennsylvania Game Comm’n v. K.D. Miller Lumber Co., 654 A.2d 6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (actual location of boundary lines is a question of fact)
- Merlino v. Eannotti, 110 A.2d 783 (Pa. Super. 1955) (reversing lines of a survey should be used only when terminus cannot be ascertained)
- Felin v. City of Philadelphia, 88 A. 421 (Pa. 1913) (unopened paper street can be treated as an artificial monument fixing a boundary)