2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-15-2010 

# Ariel L and O wne rs v

. Lori D ring P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3863

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ar ie l L and O wne r s v

. L or i Dr in g " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1725. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1725NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N os . 08- 3802, 08- 3863

___________ ARI EL LAND OW NERS , I NC.

v. L O R I D R IN G ; N A N C Y A S A R O , D efe ndant s / C ount er cl ai m Pl ai nt i ffs v. A R IE L L A N D O W N E R S , IN C .; * L A K E P R O P E R T Y O W N E R S ,

C ou nter cl ai m D efen dan t s L o ri D ri n g ; N a n c yA s a ro , A ppel l ant s atN o. 08- 3802 *( A m ended pe rC l erk' s O r derof 10/ 24/ 08)

_____________ ARI EL LAND OW NERS , I NC.

v. L O R I D R IN G ; N A N C Y A S A R O , D efe ndant s / C ount er cl ai m Pl ai nt i ffs v. A RI EL L A N D O W N ER S, I N C. ; *LA K E PR O PER TY O W N ER S,

C o u n ter c laim D e f

e n d a n ts2 A r i el L and O w ner s , I nc. ; K ar l R . I ffl and; A l i ce L . Iffl and ; L ake P ropertyO w ners, A ppel l ant s atN o. 08- 3863 *( A m ended pe rC l erk' s O r derof 10/ 24/ 08)

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 3- 01- cv- 00294) D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober2, 2009 B efore: M cK E E , C H A G A R E S , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 15, 2010)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. T h is ap p ea l ari ses f

rom the J an u ary1 8 , 2 0 0 8 jud g m en t of the D istri ct C o u rt re so lv in g a d isp u te o v e r titl e to a strip o f lan d b o rd e rin g o n , an d lan d b e n e a th , a la k e in Penns y l vani a. B eca us e ouropi ni on i s w hol l yw i t houtpr ece dent i al val ue, and bec aus e the par t i es and the D i s t r i ctC our tar e fa m i l i arw i t h i t s oper at i ve fa ct s , w e off eronl yan a b b re v ia te d re c ita tio n to e x p la in w h yw e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .3

B ot h par t i es , appel l ant s L or i D r i ng and N ancyA s ar o ( “D r i ng”) , and appe l l ee A r i el L a n d O w n e rs, In c ., a ss e rt c h a in s o f tit le w h ich a lleg e d lyg iv e th e m rig h ts to th e sa m e strip o f lan d b o rd e rin g a lak e . A rie l’s o w n e rsh ip o f th e lak e is a lso a t issu e . T h is c a se is uni que and c om pl ex bec aus e of a t t enuat ed cha i ns of t i t l e. A ddi t i onal l y , the pr oper t yl i nes depend t o s om e degr ee on the w at erl i ne of the l ake, w hi ch fl uctuat es s eas onal l ybetw een 1423. 5 fee tt o 1425. 9 fee tabove s ea l evel byoper at i on of a man- m ade da m atthe end of th e la k e . I. D r i ng fi r s tcl ai m s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw as compel l ed t o gr anta R ul e 52( c) m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he ca s e att he cl os e of A r i el ’ s cas e- i n- chi ef. D r i ng ar gues thatA r i el di d notpr ovi de s uffi ci entevi dence t o des cr i be and pr ove the boundar i es of the l and c la im e d . R u le 5 2 (c ) c le a rl yg iv e s th e c o u rt b ro a d d is c re tio n o n th e tim in g o f its ju d g m e n t. W e d isag ree that the D istri ct C o u rtw as u n d er a n ysu ch co m p u lsi o n to ru le be fo re ith ea rd a ll o f th e e v id e n c e f

ro m b o th p a rties . G iv e n th e c o m p lex ityo f th is c a se a n d th e in trica te a n a ly sis o f

e v id e n c e re q u ire d h e re , the D istric t C o u rt w a s w e ll w ith in its d isc re tio n to denyt he R ul e 52 mot i on t o di s m i s s atthe cl os e of A r i el ’ s cas e- i n- chi ef. Si m i l ar l y , w e do notfi nd anym er i ti n D r i ng’ s as s ert i on thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tw as r equi r ed t o i ns er tt w o of i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs i nt o t he j udgm entthati ti s s ued. D r i ng i ni t i al l ycompl ai ns t hatt he j udgm ents houl d have s t at ed thatA r i el di d notow n t he l ake by deed. T he i s s ue atbar , how ever , w as t i t l e t o t he l ake. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound that4

A r i el ’ s ow ner s hi p of the l ake c oul d notbe es t abl i s hed byr ecor d t i t l e, butcoul d be found o n th e b a sis o f

a d v e rse p o ss e ss io n . A c c o rd in g ly , the C o u rt re n d e re d ju d g m e n t, statin g : “Ju d g m en t be a n d h ere b yis en tered in f av o r of A ri el L an d O w n ers, I n c. an d ag ains t L o ri D r i ng and N ancyA s ar o as t o t i t l e byadver s e pos s es s i on of Lake A r i el and M ud Pond t o a leve l of 1 4 2 3 . 5 fe et ab o v e se a lev el. ” T h is l an g u ag e d ef init ivelyreso lves the issu e a t bar. T her efor e the D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed D r i ng’ s M ot i on s eeki ng emendat i on of the ju d g m e n t. Si m i l ar l y , D r i ng compl ai ns t hatthe j udgm ents houl d s peci fi cal l ydet ai l the l ow w at erl evel as 1423. 5 fee tabove s ea l evel , and the hi gh w at erl evel as 1425. 9 fee tabove se a lev e l. T h e ju d g m e n t sta tes :

J udgm entbe and he r ebyi s ent er ed i n favorof Lori D r i ng and N an cyA saro an d ag ains t A ri el L an d O w n ers, I n c. as to rec o rd t i t l e of the Sout h St r i p of 2. 4 fee t , the di ffe r ence betw een the natur al w at erl evel of Lake A r i el and M ud Pond, and the hi gh w a te r m a rk o f

s a m e . T he j udgm ental s o concl udes : “J udgm entbe and he r ebyi s ent er ed i n favorof A r i el L and O w ner s , I nc. and aga i ns tL or i D r i ng and N ancyA s ar o as t o a pr es cr i pt i ve ea s ementi n the S ou t h S t ri p o f 2.4 feett o a level of 1 42 5. 9 fee tabo ve sea l evel. ” W e fi nd these stat em en ts t o b e su ff

ici en tl yclea r. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err i n d en y ing D ri n g ’s m o ti o n to rec o n side r. N ext , D r i ng chal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng thatgave ow ner s hi p of the l and undert he l ake t o A r i el on t he bas i s of adve r s e pos s es s i on. T heycl ai m that , s i nce a pr i or5

s et t l ementr educe d t he cl ai m s att r i al t o C ountI of the amended compl ai nt , the D i s t r i ct C o u rt w a s lim ited to th e iss u e o f w h e th e r th e d e e d p ro f

f e re d b yA rie l w a s p ro o f o f th e ir o w n e rsh ip o f

th e lan d u n d e rn e a th th e lak e . T h e ir c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f C o u n t I is sim p ly in c o rr e c t. A l t hough A r i el expl i ci t l ynot ed i t s pos s es s i on of a de ed that , i tm ai nt ai ned, pr oved i t s ow ner s hi p, A r i el al s o cont ended thati thas been “ i n actual pos s es s i on of and ha s exer ci s ed domi ni on and contr ol overthe ent i r e bodyof w at ercomm onl yknow n as L ake A r i el and M ud Pond . . . . ” M or eover , i n C ountI , A r i el s oughtan or dergi vi ng i t“fe e sim p le t it le t o the p rop erty , ” a n d italso req u ested “su ch o ther a n d fu rth er o rde rs as a re nece s s aryfort he gr ant i ng of pr operr el i ef t o [A r i el ] her ei n be made as the ca s e may r equi r e oras t he courtm aydeem pr oper . ” A s D r i ng conce des i n t he br i ef, “a c our ti s not lim ited to g ra n tin g re lief to a p a rtyso lelyo n th e b a sis o f th e o rie s o f

re c o v e ryse t f

o rth in t he pl eadi ngs . ” W e fi nd t hatC ountI w as s uffi ci ent l ybr oad t o pl ace D r i ng on not i ce that adver s e pos s es s i on w as a pos s i bl e means byw hi ch A r i el w oul d as s ertt i t l e t o t he l and undert he l ake i n C ountI . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ycons i der ed and r ender ed j udgm ent on t his basi s. D r i ng al s o chal l enges t he s ubs t ance of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s adver s e pos s es s i on ru lin g . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t, sin c e 1 9 6 4 , A rie l m a in tain e d a c tu a l, cont i nuous , excl us i ve, vi s i bl e, not or i ous , di s t i nctand hos t i l e pos s es s i on of the l and under th e lak e . T h e D istric t C o u rt c ited p rim a rilyto u n d isp u ted e v id e n c e th a t, th ro u g h o u t th isD r i ng and A s ar o poi ntt o t es t i m onybyA r i el ’ s l ake managerthathi s act i vi t ydat ed 1. onl yt o 1989, and al s o t o hi s s t at ement s thatA r i el di d noteverbel i eve i tow ned the body of w at erknow n as “M ud Pond. ” H ow ever , the r ecor d demonstr at ed A r i el ’ s contr ol of the w at erl evel fors eventy - s i x y ear s . M or eover , the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng thatL ake A r i el and M ud Pond w er e one bodyof w at erel i m i nat es the s i gni fi canc e of t es t i m onyfocus ed u p o n th a t p o rt io n o f

th e la k e . Si m i l ar l y , D r i ng and A s ar o’ s r efe r ence t o Mi l l e rv . L u th e r a n Co n f e r e n c e & Ca mp 2. A s s ’ n, 2 0 0 A . 6 4 6 (P a . 1 9 3 8 ); C am p C hi copee v. E den , 1 5 4 A . 3 0 5 (P a . 1 9 3 1 ); Shaf f erv. B a ylor ’s L a ke A ss’n , 141 A . 2d 583 ( Pa. 1958) ; and Loughran v
. Mat yl ew i cz , 81 A . 2d 879 ( Pa. 1951) ar e unava i l i ng beca us e al l of them focus upon f actpatt erns of “oc cas i onal us e” of pr oper t y . W hi l e F l i cke ngerv. H us t on , 4 3 5 A . 2 d 1 9 0 (P a. S u p er. 19 8 1 ) i n v o lves m o re t han occ as i onal us e, i ti s di s t i ngui s hed byi t s focus upon l anded pr oper t y . C ont i nuous (c o n tin u e d ...) 6 t i m e, A r i el contr ol l ed the w at erl evel of the l ake byoper at i ng a dam t hats eas onal l yr ai s ed and l ow er ed the w at erbyr oughl y2. 4 fee t . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o t ook not e of e vi dence th a t A ri e l h a d th e re p u ta tio n a m o n g re s id e n ts a t th e la k e o f b e in g th e o w n e r o f

th e la k e . T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed thi s evi dence as pr oof of i t s ow ner s hi p of the s t r i p of l and that w as s eas onal l yfl ooded, buts t at ed thatthe t es t i m onyw as convi nci ng on t he i s s ue that A r i el contr ol l ed the w at erl evel “l egi t i m at el y . ” W e do notfi nd anyerr ori n ei t herfi ndi ng. 1 M or eover , D r i ng has notpr oduced, nordi d ourow n r es ear ch r evea l any contr ol l i ng s t at e pr ece denton poi ntt hatw oul d underm i ne the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us i on on adver s e pos s es s i on. D r i ng’ s r efe r ence t o C o ste llo v . H a rr is , 29 A . 874 ( Pa. 1 8 9 4 ) is m isp lac e d . T h is c a se a c tu a llysu p p o rts th e D istric t C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t A rie l d id notow n t he di s put ed s t r i p of l and, butthati tdi d have a pr es cr i pt i ve ea s ementbyvi r tue of th e s e a s o n a l f

lo o d in g . C o ste llo i s s i l enton w hetherthe cont i nuous contr ol of the w at er l evel of a l ake c ons t i tut es evi dence of adve r s e pos s es s i on of the l and bene ath t he l ake. 2( . . . cont i nued) 2. c o n tr o l o f

th e w a te r l e v e l o f

a n e n tir e la k e is q u a lita tiv e ly d is tin c t.

7 F o r th e se re a so n s, w e f

in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyc o n c lu d e d th a t A rie l h e ld tit le to th e la n d u n d e r t h e la k e b ya d v e rs e p o s s e s s io n . D r i ng nextchal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng thata bodyof w at err efe r r ed t o as “M u d P o n d ” w as d ist inct fro m L ak e A ri el. A s a f ac tual m att er, th e D istri ct C o u rt concl uded thatt hei ras s er t i on of a s epar at e bodyof w at eri s uns uppor t ed i n anyof the r el evantdeeds i n t he cha i ns of t i t l e s ubm i t t ed bythe part i es . M or eover , ourr evi ew of the r ecor d m akes i tobvi ous t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our templ oy ed cons i der abl e ef for ti n cul l i ng th ro u g h a w id e a rr a yo f e v id e n c e , in c lu d in g a n o n -s ite b o a t to u r. Al t h o u g h t h e c l a s s i f

i c a t i o n o f

a b o d yo f

wa t e ri s a mi x e d q u e s t i o n o f f a c ta n d l a w, t he w ei ghtof the dec i s i on on t hi s i s s ue i s fac tual . A ccor di ngl y , w e gi ve gr eatdefe r ence t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on i n t hi s r egar d. W e have notfound anyevi dence that w o u ld lea d u s to c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt m isp e rc e iv e d th e re c o rd o r im p ro p e rly appl i ed the l aw i n r eac hi ng i t s j udgm ent , and on thi s bas i s w e conc l ude thatthe D i s t r i ct C o u rtd id n o t err. F inally , w ith reg ard to an ea sem en t held b yD ri n g to the lake , the D istri ct C o u rt p ro p e rl yc o n c lu d e d th a t r e c o rd e v id e n c e is s im p ly in s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt s u c h a c la im . II.8

W ith re g a rd to A ri e l’ s c ro s s a p p e a ls , w e d o n o t f in d a n ym e ri t in th e ira s s e rt io n s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded thatA r i el ’ s ow ner s hi p of l and underneath t he l ake di d notext end bey ond t he l ow es tw at erl evel of 1423. 5 fee t . W e do notfi nd anyevi dence to co m p el a d iffe ren t fac tual co n clus ion fro m that rea ch ed b ythe D istri ct C o u rt c o n c e rn in g th e lac k o f

p ro o f o f o w n e rsh ip o f

th is s trip o f

lan d in th e c h a in s o f

tit le p re se n ted to th e c o u rt. A d d iti o n a lly , as w e n o ted e a rlier , P e n n sy lv a n ia p re c e d e n t m a k e s it c lea r th a t o c c a sio n a l in ten tio n a l f lo o d in g o f

c e rta in p ro p e rtyis n o t, of itse lf , su f f icie n t to e s ta b lis h o w n e rs h ip o f

th a t p ro p e rt y . C os t el l o, 29 A . 874. W e al s o cannots t r et ch the r eput at i onal evi dence t o s uffi ce a s pr oof of ow ner s hi p. Forthes e r eas ons , w e do notfi nd a n ye rr o r i n th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n . W e al so agree w i t h the D i stri ctC ou rtthat, beg i nn i ng w i t h the deed t o Joel J on es, dat ed J anuary21, 1862, i ti s cl eart hatthe s t r i p of l and thati s the s ubj ectof the pr es ent l i t i gat i on w as r es erved t o E dw ar d W . W es t on, and thatow ner s hi p of thi s s t r i p can be tra c e d to th e d e e d h e ld b yD rin g a n d A sa ro . A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in concl udi ng t hatD r i ng and A s ar o hol d, byr ecor d deed, t i t l e t o t he di s put ed s t r i p of l and b e tw e e n th e h ig h a n d lo w w a te r m a rk s o f th e la k e .
II I. F o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d a b o v e , w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .