J

- S16039

- 18

____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MARK F. NYE AND LINDA L. NYE

v. DILLON T. SHIPMAN N O . 15

- 187

MARK F. NYE AND LINDA L. NYE

v. DILLON T. SHIPMAN, JAMES R. SHIPMAN, DENISE J. NEFF, AND RANGE RESOURCES

- APPALACHIA, LLC NO. 16

- 790

APPEAL OF: DILLON T. SHIPMAN, JAMES R. SHIPMAN, AND DENIS E J. NEFF : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1327 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 18, 2017 i n the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County

Civil Division at No s : 15

- 187

16

- 790

BEFORE: BOWES, J., MURRAY, J., and PLATT*, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED JUNE 06, 2018 Appellants, Dillon T. Shipman, James R. Shipman, and Denise J. Neff, appeal from the judgment entered in favor of Appellees, Mark F. Nye and Linda L. Nye, in this quiet title action. We affirm. We take the factual and procedural history in this matter from our
revie w of the certified record. Appellants and Appellees own adjoining parcelsJ

- S16039

- 18

- 2

-

of land in Lewis Township (the Nye Property, belonging to Appellees, and the Shipman Property, belonging to Appellants). On June 20, 2016, Appell ee s filed a complaint against Appel l ant s seeking quiet title to a disputed area of property (the Disputed Ar ea) in between their two parcels. T he trial court conducted a non

- jury trial on June 14, 2017. At the beginning of trial, the parties stipulated that The legal description for t he southern boundary of the [Nye] Property, which is also the northern boundary of the [Shipman] Property, is the same in the Deeds in the chains of title for both the [Shipman] Property and the [Nye] Property, as follows: “. . . thence along the North lin e of said road [Upper Bobst Mountain Road] in an Easterly and Northerly direction to a wooden light pole in said road ; thence in an Easterly direction at right angles to said road to a point in line of land now or formerly of Phelps or the Goodwill Hunting Club . . .” (Stipulation, at unnumbered page 2 ¶ 5) (emphasis added in stipulation )

. Appellees claimed that the ir deed refers to the pole located on the east side of the road (the Nye Pole), giving them title to the Disputed Area. Appellants argue that Appellees’ deed refers to the pole located on the west side of the road (the Shipman Pole), giving them title to the Disputed Area. In their stipulation, the parties agreed that Appellees’ deed indicates that the Nye Property contains approximately 58 acres. The parties concur that if the court uses the Nye Pole as the monument for the boundary in dispute, the Nye Property contains 58 acres, but if the Shipman Pole is used, the Nye Property contains 50 acres. The parties agreed that although every document in the Nye chain of title indicates 58 acres, certain other documentsJ

- S16039

- 18

- 3

-

indicate 50 acres. ( See id. at unnumbered page 5 ¶¶ 18

- 22 ). The parties disagree whether the Article of Agreement dividing the property contained the number 50 or 58 with respect to the acreage of the Nye Property. ( See id. at unnumbered page 4 ¶ 17; Article of Agreement, 1/10/73, at 1). Appellees’ expert witness, Michael Maneval testified at trial as an expert in the fi e l d of surveying and a licensed surveyor in Pennsylvania. ( See N.T. Trial, 6/14/17, at 59

- 60). He opined that, based on the description in the deed, the property boundary was marked by the Nye Pole. ( See id. at 66). The c ourt entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and verdict on July 3, 2017. ( See Trial Court Opinion and Verdict , 7/03/17). It found Mr. Maneval’s testimony credible, and found that Appellees had met their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Nye Pole marked the property boundary and, thus, they were entitled to quiet title to the Disputed Area. Appellants filed post

- sentence motions on July 13, 2017, which the trial court denied on July 17, 2017. This timely appeal foll owed. 1 Appellants raise one question on review: “Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in misinterpreting a deed description by taking the pertinent calls out of order?” (Appellant s ’ Brief, at 2). Appellant s challenge the trial court’s finding concerning the location of the wooden light pole referred to in Appell ee s’ deed. ( See id. at 6

- 11).

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 Pursuant to the trial court’s order, Appellants filed a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal on September 8, 2017. The trial court entered its opinion on November 1, 2017, wherein it relied, in part, on its July 3, 2017 opinion. See Pa.R .A.P. 1925.J

- S16039

- 18

- 4

-

Specifically, they argue: “[a] line that runs along the northern side of Upper Bobst Mountain Road, cannot possibly a nd does not run through a utility pole on the opposite side of Upper Bobst M ountain Road. Th eir theory causes an absurd result.” ( Id. at 6) (citation omitted) . Therefore, they claim, the trial court’s finding constitutes a misinterpretation of the deed. ( See id. at 6

- 11). We disagree. Our standard of review is well

- settled: When reviewing a trial court’ s decision regarding an action to quiet title, we are limited to determining whether the findings of fact that led to the trial court ’ s conclusions of law are supported by competent evidence. Ordinarily, an appellate court will not reverse a determination of the trial court in a quiet title action absent an error of law or capricious disregard of the evidence. Moore v. Duran , 687 A.2d 822, 827 ( Pa. Supe r. 1996) , appeal denied , 700 A.2d 442 (Pa. 1997) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 2 “An action to quiet title is designed to resolve a dispute over the title to real estate of which the plaintiff is in possession. The plaintiff bringing a quiet
ti tle action has the burden of proof and must recover on the strength of its

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 Appellants c laim that their issue concerns interpretation of a deed, and therefore argue that the standard of review should be de novo , and the scope of review plenary. ( See Appellants’ Brief, at 1

- 2 ; Appellants’ Reply Brief, at 1

- 2). Howev er, their issue clearly concerns a specific finding of fact made by the trial court, with which they disagree (the location of the wooden light pole referred to in the deed). ( See Appellants’ Brief, at 6

- 11 ). “Findings of the trial judge in a non

- jury ca se must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as a verdict of a jury and will not be disturbed on appeal absent error of law or abuse of discretion.” Anderson v. Litke Family Ltd. P’ship , 748 A.2d 737, 739 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citation omitted).J

- S16039

- 18

- 5

-

own title.” Woodhouse Hunting Club, Inc. v. Hoyt , 2018 WL 1530671 , at *3 ( Pa. Super. filed Mar. 29, 2018) (citations omitted) . “In an action to quiet title, the plaintiff . . . be ars the burden of proof to establish title by a fair preponderance of the evidence.” Long Run Timber Co. v. Dep ’ t of Conservation & Nat. Res. , 145 A.3d 1217, 1228 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (citation omitted)

. 3 Here, t he parties agree that the correct boundary of the land runs through the “wooden light pole in said road.” (Stipulation, at unnumbered page 2 ¶ 5) (emphasis omitted). Thus , the main q uestion before the trial
court was the location of the particular light pole . In render ing its verdict after the non

- jury trial in this matter , the court concluded:

In this case, a fair preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that the correct location of th e boundary line in dispute is

. . . determined by the wooden pole claimed b y [Appell ee s , the Nye Pole ]. A common sense reading of the deed description in this case supports the credible testimony of Mr. Maneval that the first light pole perpendicular to Upper Bobst Mo[u]ntain Road tr iggers the right angle and boundary lin e to th e Goodwill Hunting Club p roperty. The Deed description does not dictate that the light pole be on the East or West of Upper Bobst Mountain Road. No course or distances or metes and bounds or natural monuments are in the deed so that acreage described in the deed provides support for Maneval’s opinion. (Trial Ct. Op., 7/03/17, at 4).

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 We note that “[t]his Court is not bound by decisions of the Commonwealth Court. However, such decisions provide persuasive authority, and we may turn to our colleagues on the Commonwealth Court for guidance when appropriate.” Petow v. Warehime , 996 A.2d 1083, 1088 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2010), appeal denied , 12 A.3d 371 (Pa. 2010) (citations omitted )

.J

- S16039

- 18

- 6

-

Upon review, we conclude that the trial court’s decision is supported by competent evidence in the record. See Moore , supra at 827

. At trial, Appell ee s offered evidence of their deed indicating a 58

- acre quantity of land, which would correspond with the Nye Pole

. They also offered the expert testimony of Mr. Maneval, whom the trial court found credible, who opined that the wooden light pole referred to in the deed is the p ole on the East side of the road

— the Nye P ole. ( See Trial Ct. Op., 11/01/17, at 4). Thus, the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the pole referred to is the Nye Pole. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that Appellees met their burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were entitled to quiet t itle of the Disputed Area

. See Woodhouse Hunting Club, Inc. , supra at *3. Appellants’ issue does not merit relief. Judgment affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 06/06/2018