Village of Four Seasons Ass'n v. Elk Mountain Ski Resort, Inc.
103 A.3d 814
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- This is Village of Four Seasons v. Elk Mountain Ski Resort, 2014 Pa. Super. 232, an appeal from a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
- Elk Mountain draws snowmaking water from Elk Pond, which connects via a breached berm to Village Lake, owned by Village.
- Village Lake is used for recreation; Elk Pond and Village Lake are non-navigable, and the land beneath Village Lake is Village's.
- Trial court held Village owns the lakebed and can regulate Village Lake; Elk was enjoined from drawing water and the berm breach ordered closed.
- Key issues include whether Elk has riparian reasonable use rights, possible prescriptive rights, laches, or an irrevocable license.
- The court conducted a riparian-law analysis, distinguishing flow-through vs. land-locked non-navigable waters and vacating/remanding on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper given factual disputes on watercourse status | Elk contends Elk Pond and Village Lake form a flowing watercourse. | Village argues non-navigable lakebed ownership governs, giving Village control. | Summary judgment improper; genuine issues on whether water is flowing. |
| Whether Elk's use qualifies as reasonable use under riparian law | Elk asserts reasonable use rights to Snowmaking water from Village Lake. | Village maintains its land ownership and non-navigable status allow regulation and deny riparian rights. | Elk's reasonable-use defense survives for further factual development. |
| Whether Elk has a prescriptive easement to use Village Lake water | Elk pleads adverse, open, continuous use for 21 years despite Village indulgence. | Village argues 1980 indulgence negates adversity and defeats prescription. | Prescriptive easement rejected; indulgence defeats adverse use. |
| Whether Elk can rely on laches to bar Village’s claims | Elk contends Village delayed enforcement and changed position prejudicially. | Village argues Elk cannot show prejudice or due diligence lapse. | Laches not established; delay and prejudice not shown to warrant relief. |
| Whether Elk has an irrevocable license to use Village Lake water | Elk asserts an irrevocable license based on reliance and expenditures. | Village contends no license was pleaded or proven; license is revocable absent justification. | Elk waived irrevocable license defense; summary judgment proper on this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mountain Props., Inc. v. Tyler Hill Realty Corp., 767 A.2d 1096 (Pa. 2001) (land ownership does not include water in flowing watercourses; riparian rights vary by water type)
- Shaffer v. Baylor’s Lake Ass’n, Inc., 141 A.2d 583 (Pa. 1958) (non-navigable lakebed ownership allows regulation by lakebed owner)
- Smoulter v. Boyd, 58 A. 144 (Pa. 1904) (owner of land under water can regulate surface use)
- Clark v. Pa. R.R. Co., 22 A.989 (Pa. 1891) (riparian owners have right to natural flow of stream; reasonable use standard)
- Loughran v. Matylewicz, 81 A.2d 879 (Pa. 1951) (no riparian rights attach where land under water is owned by others)
- Morning Call, Inc. v. Bell Atl.-Pa., Inc., 761 A.2d 139 (Pa. Super. 2000) (boilerplate pleading may be insufficient; but permissible to plead defenses)
- Walley v. Iraca, 520 A.2d 886 (Pa. Super. 1987) (prescriptive easement requires adverse, exclusive, 21-year use; consent defeats adverse use)