Starling, W. v. Lake Meade Prop., Aplt., Starling, W. v. Lake Meade Prop., Aplt.

Background

Lake Meade subdivision lots are depicted on a recorded Plan without metes-and-bounds; Lot 726 is owned by the Starlings and Lot 1020 is adjacent; a shoreline strip (the "Disputed Property") lies between them and Custer Drive.
The Association claims the Disputed Property is common/usable by the Association; the Starlings claim ownership and have paid taxes on the Disputed Property.
The Association moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the Disputed Property is not owned by the Starlings and is available for Association use; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Association.
The Superior Court reversed and remanded; the case reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on appeal (No. 30 MAP 2016).
Justice Dougherty (concurring in part and dissenting in part) agrees with the majority on easement/Custer Drive issues but dissents from the grant of summary judgment on ownership of the Disputed Property, arguing factual issues remain as to the Lot 726 boundary.
Key contested legal point: how to interpret the Plan and deeds (lot-number descriptions only) to locate the boundary between Lots 726 and 1020 and determine ownership of the shoreline strip.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Starlings)	Defendant's Argument (Association)	Held
Whether boundary between Lots 726 and 1020 (and ownership of Disputed Property) can be resolved as a matter of law at summary judgment	Boundary location is ambiguous on Plan/deed; factual dispute exists (tax payments, Association admissions); question for fact-finder	Plan/deed construed to place boundary at points of tangency with Custer Drive, leaving Disputed Property outside Lot 726 and usable by Association; summary judgment appropriate	Justice Dougherty would hold genuine factual disputes exist and reverse summary judgment on ownership; remand for fact-finding (dissenting view)
Proper method to interpret lot-number-only deeds and subdivision Plan	Interpret deed/Plan against grantor (LMI) and examine whole instrument and circumstances to ascertain intent; do not invent boundaries	Apply contract-like interpretation to avoid absurdity; treat tangency points as lot boundaries to resolve ambiguity	Dougherty rejects treating tangency-as-boundary as a legal resolution and says deed interpretation principles require fact-finding
Whether Association’s deed granted broader shoreline/common rights beyond listed lots, roads, dam, lake and specific lots	Association’s deed grants only specifically enumerated lots and common features; disallowed to claim undesignated shoreline	Association may use undesignated shoreline as common area if Plan/deed leave it undesignated	Dougherty: deed language does not support giving Association additional rights; issue tied to boundary and fact-finding
Applicability of Pocono Manor precedent to resolve ownership/use issues	Starlings: Pocono Manor is inapposite because it addressed deed restrictions on use, not location of boundaries	Association: majority relied on Pocono Manor to support resolution of ambiguity in favor of communal use	Dougherty: Pocono Manor primarily concerns use/restrictions and is not persuasive for locating boundaries; boundary location is factual

Key Cases Cited

Weaver v. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc., 926 A.2d 899 (Pa. 2007) (standards for appellate review of summary judgment)
Toy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007) (summary judgment only when right to judgment is clear and free from doubt)
Marks v. Tasman, 589 A.2d 205 (Pa. 1991) (summary judgment standard)
Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (view record in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Jones v. SEPTA, 772 A.2d 435 (Pa. 2001) (summary judgment principles)
In re Conveyance of Land Belonging to City of DuBois, 335 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1975) (deed interpretation focuses on parties’ intent as expressed)
Krill v. Petitto, 175 A.2d 54 (Pa. 1961) (deed interpretation based on meaning of words used)
New Charter Coal Co. v. McKee, 191 A.2d 830 (Pa. 1963) (ascertaining intent from instrument and surrounding circumstances)
Ralston v. Ralston, 55 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2012) (ambiguities in deed construed against drafter)
Pocono Manor Ass'n v. Allen, 12 A.2d 32 (Pa. 1940) (deed restrictions govern use within subdivisions)
Corbin v. Cowan, 716 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 1998) (location of boundary is a question for the trier of fact)
Plott v. Cole, 547 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Super. 1988) (boundary location factual issue)
Plauchak v. Boling, 653 A.2d 671 (Pa. Super. 1995) (boundary location and ownership for trier of fact)