2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-15-2010

Ariel Land Owners v. Lori Dring

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-3863

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Ariel Land Owners v. Lori Dring" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1725.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1725
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 08-3802, 08-3863

___________

ARIEL LAND OWNERS, INC.

v.

LORI DRING; NANCY ASARO, 

 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs

v.

ARIEL LAND OWNERS, INC.; *LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS, 

 Counterclaim Defendants 

Lori Dring; Nancy Asaro, 

Appellants at No. 08-3802

 *(Amended per Clerk's Order of 10/24/08)

_____________

ARIEL LAND OWNERS, INC.

v.

LORI DRING; NANCY ASARO, 

 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs

v.

ARIEL LAND OWNERS, INC.; *LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS,

 Counterclaim Defendants
2

 Ariel Land Owners, Inc.; Karl R. Iffland;

 Alice L. Iffland; Lake Property Owners,

 Appellants at No. 08-3863

 *(Amended per Clerk's Order of 10/24/08)

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 3-01-cv-00294)

District Judge: The Honorable A. Richard Caputo

___________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 2, 2009

Before: McKEE, CHAGARES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: March 15, 2010)

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

This appeal arises from the January 18, 2008 judgment of the District Court

resolving a dispute over title to a strip of land bordering on, and land beneath, a lake in

Pennsylvania. Because our opinion is wholly without precedential value, and because the

parties and the District Court are familiar with its operative facts, we offer only an

abbreviated recitation to explain why we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 
3

Both parties, appellants Lori Dring and Nancy Asaro (“Dring”), and appellee Ariel

Land Owners, Inc., assert chains of title which allegedly give them rights to the same strip

of land bordering a lake. Ariel’s ownership of the lake is also at issue. This case is

unique and complex because of attenuated chains of title. Additionally, the property lines

depend to some degree on the water line of the lake, which fluctuates seasonally between

1423.5 feet to 1425.9 feet above sea level by operation of a man-made dam at the end of

the lake. 

I.

Dring first claims that the District Court was compelled to grant a Rule 52(c)

motion to dismiss the case at the close of Ariel’s case-in-chief. Dring argues that Ariel

did not provide sufficient evidence to describe and prove the boundaries of the land

claimed. Rule 52(c) clearly gives the court broad discretion on the timing of its judgment. 

We disagree that the District Court was under any such compulsion to rule before it heard

all of the evidence from both parties. Given the complexity of this case and the intricate

analysis of evidence required here, the District Court was well within its discretion to

deny the Rule 52 motion to dismiss at the close of Ariel’s case-in-chief.

Similarly, we do not find any merit in Dring’s assertion that the District Court was

required to insert two of its factual findings into the judgment that it issued. Dring

initially complains that the judgment should have stated that Ariel did not own the lake by

deed. The issue at bar, however, was title to the lake. The District Court found that
4

Ariel’s ownership of the lake could not be established by record title, but could be found

on the basis of adverse possession. Accordingly, the Court rendered judgment, stating: 

“Judgment be and hereby is entered in favor of Ariel Land Owners, Inc. and against Lori

Dring and Nancy Asaro as to title by adverse possession of Lake Ariel and Mud Pond to a

level of 1423.5 feet above sea level.” This language definitively resolves the issue at bar.

Therefore the District Court properly denied Dring’s Motion seeking emendation of the

judgment.

Similarly, Dring complains that the judgment should specifically detail the low

water level as 1423.5 feet above sea level, and the high water level as 1425.9 feet above

sea level. The judgment states: 

Judgment be and hereby is entered in favor of Lori Dring and

Nancy Asaro and against Ariel Land Owners, Inc. as to record

title of the South Strip of 2.4 feet, the difference between the

natural water level of Lake Ariel and Mud Pond, and the high

water mark of same. 

The judgment also concludes: “Judgment be and hereby is entered in favor of Ariel Land

Owners, Inc. and against Lori Dring and Nancy Asaro as to a prescriptive easement in the

South Strip of 2.4 feet to a level of 1425.9 feet above sea level.” We find these

statements to be sufficiently clear. The District Court did not err in denying Dring’s

motion to reconsider.

Next, Dring challenges the District Court’s ruling that gave ownership of the land

under the lake to Ariel on the basis of adverse possession. They claim that, since a prior
5

settlement reduced the claims at trial to Count I of the amended complaint, the District

Court was limited to the issue of whether the deed proffered by Ariel was proof of their

ownership of the land underneath the lake. Their characterization of Count I is simply

incorrect. 

Although Ariel explicitly noted its possession of a deed that, it maintained, proved

its ownership, Ariel also contended that it has been “in actual possession of and has

exercised dominion and control over the entire body of water commonly known as Lake

Ariel and Mud Pond . . . .” Moreover, in Count I, Ariel sought an order giving it “fee

simple title to the property,” and it also requested “such other and further orders as are

necessary for the granting of proper relief to [Ariel] herein be made as the case may

require or as the court may deem proper.” As Dring concedes in the brief, “a court is not

limited to granting relief to a party solely on the basis of theories of recovery set forth in

the pleadings.” We find that Count I was sufficiently broad to place Dring on notice that

adverse possession was a possible means by which Ariel would assert title to the land

under the lake in Count I. The District Court properly considered and rendered judgment

on this basis.

Dring also challenges the substance of the District Court’s adverse possession

ruling. The District Court concluded that, since 1964, Ariel maintained actual,

continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct and hostile possession of the land under

the lake. The District Court cited primarily to undisputed evidence that, throughout this
Dring and Asaro point to testimony by Ariel’s lake manager that his activity dated 1.

only to 1989, and also to his statements that Ariel did not ever believe it owned the body

of water known as “Mud Pond.” However, the record demonstrated Ariel’s control of the

water level for seventy-six years. Moreover, the District Court’s ruling that Lake Ariel

and Mud Pond were one body of water eliminates the significance of testimony focused

upon that portion of the lake. 

Similarly, Dring and Asaro’s reference to Miller v. Lutheran Conference & Camp 2.

Ass’n, 200 A. 646 (Pa. 1938); Camp Chicopee v. Eden, 154 A. 305 (Pa. 1931); Shaffer v.

Baylor’s Lake Ass’n, 141 A.2d 583 (Pa. 1958); and Loughran v. Matylewicz, 81 A.2d 879

(Pa. 1951) are unavailing because all of them focus upon fact patterns of “occasional use”

of property. While Flickenger v. Huston, 435 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super. 1981) involves more

than occasional use, it is distinguished by its focus upon landed property. Continuous

(continued...)

6

time, Ariel controlled the water level of the lake by operating a dam that seasonally raised

and lowered the water by roughly 2.4 feet. The District Court also took note of evidence

that Ariel had the reputation among residents at the lake of being the owner of the lake. 

The District Court rejected this evidence as proof of its ownership of the strip of land that

was seasonally flooded, but stated that the testimony was convincing on the issue that

Ariel controlled the water level “legitimately.” We do not find any error in either finding.1

Moreover, Dring has not produced, nor did our own research reveal any

controlling state precedent on point that would undermine the District Court’s legal

conclusion on adverse possession. Dring’s reference to Costello v. Harris, 29 A. 874 (Pa.

1894) is misplaced. This case actually supports the District Court’s finding that Ariel did

not own the disputed strip of land, but that it did have a prescriptive easement by virtue of

the seasonal flooding. Costello is silent on whether the continuous control of the water

level of a lake constitutes evidence of adverse possession of the land beneath the lake.2
(...continued) 2.

control of the water level of an entire lake is qualitatively distinct. 

7

For these reasons, we find that the District Court properly concluded that Ariel held title

to the land under the lake by adverse possession. 

Dring next challenges the District Court’s ruling that a body of water referred to as

“Mud Pond” was distinct from Lake Ariel. As a factual matter, the District Court

concluded that their assertion of a separate body of water is unsupported in any of the

relevant deeds in the chains of title submitted by the parties. Moreover, our review of the

record makes it obvious that the District Court employed considerable effort in culling

through a wide array of evidence, including an on-site boat tour. 

Although the classification of a body of water is a mixed question of fact and law,

the weight of the decision on this issue is factual. Accordingly, we give great deference

to the District Court’s conclusion in this regard. We have not found any evidence that

would lead us to conclude that the District Court misperceived the record or improperly

applied the law in reaching its judgment, and on this basis we conclude that the District

Court did not err.

Finally, with regard to an easement held by Dring to the lake, the District Court

properly concluded that record evidence is simply insufficient to support such a claim. 

II.
8

With regard to Ariel’s cross appeals, we do not find any merit in their assertions. 

The District Court properly concluded that Ariel’s ownership of land underneath the lake

did not extend beyond the lowest water level of 1423.5 feet. We do not find any evidence

to compel a different factual conclusion from that reached by the District Court

concerning the lack of proof of ownership of this strip of land in the chains of title

presented to the court. Additionally, as we noted earlier, Pennsylvania precedent makes it

clear that occasional intentional flooding of certain property is not, of itself, sufficient to

establish ownership of that property. Costello, 29 A. 874. We also cannot stretch the

reputational evidence to suffice as proof of ownership. For these reasons, we do not find

any error in the District Court’s decision. 

We also agree with the District Court that, beginning with the deed to Joel Jones,

dated January 21, 1862, it is clear that the strip of land that is the subject of the present

litigation was reserved to Edward W. Weston, and that ownership of this strip can be

traced to the deed held by Dring and Asaro. Accordingly, the District Court did not err in

concluding that Dring and Asaro hold, by record deed, title to the disputed strip of land

between the high and low water marks of the lake. 

III. 

For the reasons stated above, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.