Estojak v. Mazsa

562 A.2d 271 (1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps own and operate a business known as Andy's Auto Body. This business is situated in a plan known as the Minsi Trail Farm, the plan of which was recorded in 1925. On July 16, 1986, Ps purchased two additional lots in the Minsi Trail Farm Plan. On July 22, 1985, Ps bulldozed and graded a roadway over East Union Street from Yeates Street through to its intersection with Jennings Street in order to gain ingress and egress to their newly purchased lots and to facilitate travel from their business on Jennings Street to said lots. Ds are owners of lots adjacent to Ps' newly purchased lots. Shortly after Ps bulldozed and graded the roadway Ds erected a fence on East Union Street between their respective lots in order to prevent Ps from using said roadway for ingress and egress to their property. On August 26, 1985, Ps filed a declaratory judgment action to declare and establish their right of access over the unopened portions of East Union Street and Yeates Street, and requesting the court to restrain and enjoin appellees from blocking said access. Ps alleged that when the City of Bethlehem failed to accept the unopened portions of East Union and Yeates Streets within twenty-one years after their dedication, the city's rights to said streets lapsed, and ownership of the property dedicated for use as a public street 'reverted' to Ds as owners of the adjacent land which is not subject to the private rights of owners of land within the Minsi Trail Farm Subdivision. Ds claimed the unopened portions of East Union and Yeates Streets had 'reverted' to Ds as abutting landowners, but denied that Ds had any right of access over said property. Ds claims that Ps' access had been extinguished by D's adverse possession of the land for a period in excess of twenty-one years. At trial, Ds claimed that they had continuously maintained the adjoining portions of East Union Street as a yard and play area for the enjoyment of their family since that time. They put in a driveway, laid with stone, a few cherry trees, and an apricot tree thereon. None of the parties ever erected or placed anything on the disputed property that would block access to and over East Union Street, i.e. no fence, walls, gates, buildings, plants, or shrubs were ever built or planted that would block access or would indicate that access was restricted. The court ruled in favor of Ps. It held that an easement may be extinguished by adverse possession, stating that to 'claim title by adverse possession, one must prove actual, visible, notorious, exclusive and distinct, hostile and continuous use for 21 years. The Superior Court affirmed on the grounds that the record evidence was sufficient to establish the extinguishment of Ps' easement over East Union Street under the appropriate legal standards. The acts of Ps in maintaining the property as a lawn/yard coupled with the 'natural topographical surface' of the property sufficiently obstructed ingress and egress over East Union Street for the prescriptive period to extinguish the easement by adverse possession. Ps appealed again.