Thomas A. Robinson Family Ltd. Partnership v. Bioni
178 A.3d 839
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Thomas A. Robinson Family Ltd. Partnership and T.A. Robinson Asphalt Paving, Inc. operate a commercial asphalt/equipment yard that accesses Federal Street via a privately owned cartway; paved width varies to 15 feet and in places encroaches ~3 feet onto adjacent land owned by defendants Ted and Dominic Bioni.
- Plaintiffs and their predecessor (Brunetti) used the cartway for heavy equipment and trucks for decades; plaintiffs sued for an injunction to prevent the Bionis from blocking access across the disputed strip.
- Defendants installed a steel post in 2014 obstructing the encroaching portion; the trial court granted a preliminary injunction ordering removal.
- After bench trials, the trial court entered a permanent injunction finding plaintiffs had acquired a 15-foot prescriptive easement across the Bionis’ land and additionally (without request or intervention) concluded the public/Cecil Township also had a prescriptive easement.
- Defendants appealed but did not file post-trial motions; the Superior Court considered whether an immediate interlocutory appeal was proper and whether the trial court’s findings and remedies were correct.
Issues
| Issue | Robinsons' Argument | Bionis' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / failure to file post-trial motions — whether appeal waived | Robinsons argued post-trial motions were required under Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 for non-jury equity trials | Bionis argued Rule 311(a)(4)(ii) allowed immediate appeal because the permanent injunction changed the status quo and was effective before final judgment | Court: appeal was timely under Rule 311(a)(4)(ii) because the permanent injunction immediately altered the status quo (expanded rights to the public) and thus post-trial motions were not required |
| Sufficiency of factual findings | Plaintiffs asserted trial court findings (width, historical use) were supported by surveyor and witness testimony | Defendants contended many findings lacked record support and were irrelevant or inconsistent | Court: accepted key factual findings (e.g., 15-ft paved width, historical heavy-equipment use) as supported by competent evidence; declined to review immaterial findings |
| Existence and scope of plaintiffs' prescriptive easement (elements; width) | Plaintiffs claimed adverse, open, notorious, continuous 21-year use by them and predecessor established a 15-ft prescriptive easement | Defendants argued plaintiffs cannot prove 21 years of encroachment width (plaintiffs owned only 20 years) and predecessor did not testify to encroaching width; cited Hash v. Sofinowski limiting proof of width to prescriptive period use | Court: found prescriptive elements met based on continuous historic use by predecessor and plaintiffs; distinguished Hash and upheld 15-ft width as proven over the prescriptive period |
| Trial court's grant of a public prescriptive easement | Plaintiffs did not plead or seek a public easement; evidence did not show general public use or township claim | Defendants argued trial court lacked basis to grant a public easement and no public party intervened | Court: vacated the portion of injunction granting rights to the public/Cecil Township because no claim, evidence, or intervention supported a public prescriptive easement |
Key Cases Cited
- Liberty Place Retail Associates, L.P. v. Israelite Sch. of Universal Practical Knowledge, 102 A.3d 501 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for grant/denial of permanent injunction; trial court factual findings in equity given weight if supported)
- Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491 (Pa. 2002) (post-trial motion rule 227.1 applies to equity cases; post-trial motions preserve appellate issues and produce final order)
- Robert Half Int'l, Inc. v. Marlton Techs., Inc., 902 A.2d 519 (Pa. Super. 2006) (plenary review of jurisdictional questions)
- Int'l Ass'n of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local Union No. 3 v. Mid-Atlantic Promotions, Inc., 856 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2004) (final judgment resulting from post-trial motion is the appealable order)
- Wynnewood Dev., Inc. v. Bank & Trust Co. of Old York Road, 711 A.2d 1003 (Pa. 1998) (Rule 311(a)(4) permits interlocutory appeals from injunction orders; denial of injunctive relief can be immediately appealable)
- Nevyas v. Morgan, 921 A.2d 8 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appeal under Rule 311(a)(4) obviates need for post-trial motion when injunction is interlocutory)
- Altoona Reg'l Health Sys. v. Schutt, 100 A.3d 260 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appeal of injunction under Rule 311(a)(4) where other claims remained)
- Hash v. Sofinowski, 487 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 1985) (width of prescriptive easement must be proven by actual use during prescriptive period)
- Vill. of Four Seasons Ass'n, Inc. v. Elk Mountain Ski Resort, Inc., 103 A.3d 814 (Pa. Super. 2014) (elements of a prescriptive easement)
- Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 505 A.2d 1046 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (requirements for establishing a public prescriptive easement)
- Karpieniak v. Lowe, 747 A.2d 928 (Pa. Super. 2000) (equity cannot grant broader relief than pleaded and proven)