I respectfully dissent.

“A nonsuit is proper only if the jury, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising from it in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, could not reasonably conclude that the elements of the cause of action had been established.” Printed Image of York, Inc. v. Mifflin Press, Ltd. , 133 A.3d 55, 59 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). “Furthermore, all conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.”

“[I]n order to prevail in an action to quiet title, plaintiff must establish title by a fair preponderance of the evidence.” Moore v. Com., Dep't of Envtl. Res. , 566 A.2d 905, 907 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). Here, the Leepers  Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

offered the testimony of Joseph Pergio, an expert in the field of title abstracting, that there was “no question,” based upon his review of the tax and property records, that the Leepers have title to 11 acres within the 50- acre parcel William Queer owned by deed of September 10, 1883. N.T., 11/17/2015, at 62-63, 38-39. The Leepers also offered the testimony of surveyor Richard Cross. Mr. Cross offered an expert opinion as to the exact location of the 11-acre parcel, with a metes-and-bounds description, based upon his review of the site, the tax map, and other relevant considerations. at 145-149; Leepers’ Trial Exhibit 30.

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Leepers, they proved title to a specific 11-acre parcel of land and established its exact location. Accordingly, I would hold that the entry of a nonsuit was improper, and would reverse the trial court’s rulings in both cases.