Case ID: pa_630/html/0328-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

106 A.3d 677
    OCIRNE, INC. t/a Provco Partners, L.P. and 10 East Germantown Pike, LLC v. NEW TEES CO., L.P. Petition of Ocirne, Inc. t/a Provco Partners, L.P.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Dec. 23, 2014.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues as stated by petitioner are:

(1) Did the Superior Court correctly hold that successive periods of adverse use of a property may not be “tacked” to establish the requisite twenty-one years for a prescriptive easement claim unless the prescriptive easement claim is specifically referred to in the deed between the successive landowners?
(2) Did the trial court misapply Pennsylvania law by requiring Proveo to prove that the prior owner of the Proveo Property “asserted” a prescriptive easement claim to the owners of the New Tees Property, and by failing to recognize that proof of an open, notorious, continuous and uninterrupted use for the prescriptive period, without evidence to explain how it began, raises a presumption that the use is adverse and under a claim of right?