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

Background

Lake Meade Subdivision: a planned community with a recorded 1967 subdivision plan (the Plan). LMI developed and sold lots; the Lake Meade Property Owners Association (Association) was incorporated in 1966.
Lots 725 and 726 (Starling Tract) were conveyed in 1967; the Plan shows Custer Drive (a sixty-foot platted road) ending in a cul-de-sac at the peninsula. A narrow, undesignated strip of land along the peninsula’s northern and western shores (the Disputed Property) is not drawn as specific lots or labeled recreational/lake-access.
In 1968 LMI deeded “all those roads” and other enumerated lots to the Association; the 1968 deed did not expressly reference the Disputed Property.
The Starlings acquired Lots 725/726 in 2002, built a house, and complained of third‑party use (fishing, parking, parties) on Custer Drive and the Disputed Property. The Association used and managed the Disputed Property for community activities.
The Starlings sued for trespass, ejectment, and declaratory/injunctive relief asserting (a) ownership of the Disputed Property (either by a wrap‑around of Lot 726 or by Lot 725 extending across Custer Drive), and (b) that Association use of Custer Drive and the Disputed Property for non‑vehicular/recreational activities was prohibited by the covenants.
Trial court granted partial summary judgment for the Association: it held (i) the Association took fee simple title to Custer Drive in the 1968 deed (subject to owners’ access easements), (ii) the Plan’s point of tangency bounds Lot 726 (so the Starlings do not own the Disputed Property), and (iii) the Plan’s purpose and Dedication permit recreational uses of undesignated common strips. The Superior Court reversed on several points; the Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Association holds fee simple title to Custer Drive or only an easement (i.e., whether LMI’s sale of lots extinguished its fee)	Starlings: LMI’s sales created appurtenant access easements for lot purchasers; LMI no longer held a fee in roads by 1968, so it could not convey fee simple to Association; Starlings therefore own underlying fee subject to easement	Association: 1968 deed granted roads in fee; deed language and presumption of "grant" convey fee simple absent contrary indication; owners retain easements but fee remained with LMI until conveyed	Court held Association has fee simple title to Custer Drive (subject to lot owners’ access easements); Superior Court erred in ruling LMI lost fee upon lot sales
Whether the Plan’s depiction is ambiguous so parol evidence can show Lot 726 "wraps around" to include the Disputed Property	Starlings: Plan lacks metes for Lot 726’s northern boundary; post‑Plan surveys, tax maps, prior litigation (Cookson) and conduct support that Lot 726 wraps around cul‑de‑sac and includes Disputed Property	Association: Plan, read as whole, shows point of tangency where Lot 726 meets cul‑de‑sac and waterfront note fixes boundary; extrinsic evidence post‑dating Plan cannot alter the intended boundary; allowing wrap‑around would produce absurd competing claims (e.g., Lot 1020)	Court held Plan’s point of tangency is the intended boundary of Lot 726 as a matter of law; wrap‑around theory fails and no genuine issue of material fact on ownership of Disputed Property
Whether Starlings may obtain injunction restricting Custer Drive to "vehicular travel" only	Starlings: Association’s recreational/non‑vehicular uses exceed owners’ easement rights and covenant restrictions; injunction needed to protect private use	Association: Covenants do not limit Custer Drive to vehicular travel; Association’s fee ownership permits non‑interfering uses and Plan’s stated purpose favors outdoor recreation	Court held no injunction: Association may use Custer Drive consistent with fee ownership so long as it does not interfere with owners’ access easements; Starlings not entitled to their requested restriction
Whether Association’s recreational use of the undesignated Disputed Property is prohibited by the Plan/covenants	Starlings: absence of designation for recreation means it is not common area and Association cannot permit recreational/public use	Association: Dedication and primary purpose of Plan (outdoor recreation) permit communal/recreational uses of undesignated strips; No covenant expressly limits such use	Court did not decide final outcome on Disputed Property use; remands to permit consideration of whether covenants bar Association’s recreational uses given ownership ruling (trial‑court reasoning favoring Association on this point was reinstated for further proceedings)

Key Cases Cited

Miles Land Co. v. Hudson Coal Co., 91 A. 1061 (Pa. 1914) (distinguishes legal questions of deed meaning and construction from factual boundary location issues)
Allen v. Scheib, 101 A. 102 (Pa. 1917) (private road references in conveyances more indicative of easement than fee; burden to prove fee ownership rests on claimant)
Kao v. Haldeman, 728 A.2d 345 (Pa. 1999) (lot purchasers under a recorded subdivision plan acquire an easement of access over platted streets)
Minard Run Oil Co. v. Pennzoil Co., 214 A.2d 234 (Pa. 1965) (owner of servient tenement may use property so long as use does not interfere with easement)
Mercantile Library Co. of Phila. v. Fid. Trust Co., 83 A. 592 (Pa. 1912) (grant of fee subject to easement permits uses not inconsistent with easement)
Soffer v. Beech, 409 A.2d 337 (Pa. 1979) (ejectment requires proof of right to possession)