J - A09018 - 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PLUM HOLLOW HUNTING CLUB, INC. AND DOUGLAS HENRY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

v. JANET M. FRAKER APPEAL OF: MARK J. HALE, CHERRY D. HALE, STEVEN L. GRISSINGER & KAREN J. GRISSINGER, SUCCESSORS No. 1210 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered June 17 , 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Fulton County Civil Division at No(s): 40 OF 2009 - C BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J. * MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED AUGUST 10, 2016 In this land dispute, Mark J. Hale, Cherry D. Hale, Steven L. Grissinger & Karen J. Grissinger, as successors in interest of Janet L. Fraker (collectively, “Appellants” or “Successors”), appeal the Fulton County Court of Common Pleas’ June 17, 2015 order entering final judgment in favor of Plum Hollow Hunting Club, Inc. and Douglas Henry (collectively, “PHHC”). A fter careful review, we affirm.

____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J - A09018 - 16

- 2 -

In its February 6, 2014 Interim Non - Appealable Order and Opinion (“Interim Opinion”), its January 28, 2015 Order and Opinion (“AP Opinion”), 1 and its October 22, 2015 Opinion sur Pa. R. App. P. 1925(a) (“1925(a) Opinion”), t he trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case; therefore, we have no reason to restate them. See Interim Opinion, pp. 2 - 26; AP Opinion, pp. 1 - 3; 1925(a) Opinion, pp. 1 - 4. 2 Appellants/Successors raise the following two (2) claims for review: [1.] Whether the [c]ourt erred in refusing to find that Janet Fraker established the Larsen boundary with [PHHC] as a consentable boundary with substantial evidence and testimony, none of which was rebutted by Appe llees, such that Appellants established ownership of the subject land[?] 2. Whether the [c]ourt erred in not recognizing the recording statutes mandate that any interest in real property be recorded in the county deed records and any interest not recorded is deemed void as to a bona fide purchaser, which Appellant and their predecessors in title clearly are[?] Appellants’ Brief, p. 8. Appellants challenge the trial court’s entry of final judgment in favor of PHHC. Specifically, Appellants claim the trial court erred by not applying the

____________________________________________ 1 We follow the trial court’s designation of its January 28, 2015 Order and Op inion as the “AP Opinion”. 2 The AP Opinion incorporates by reference the Interim Opinion. See AP Opinion, p. 3. The 1925(a) Opinion repeatedly incorporates both prior opinions. See 1925(a) Opinion, pp. 5, 6, 7.J - A09018 - 16

- 3 -

doctrine of consentable boundaries and by not recognizing their status as bona fide purchasers. We disagree. When reviewing a trial court’s decision regarding an action to quiet title, [the appellate court is] limited to d etermining 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. Birdsboro Mun. Auth. v. Reading Co. & Wilmington & N. R.R. , 758 A.2d 222, 225 (Pa.Super.2000) (internal quotations and citation omitted). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applic able law, and the well - reasoned and thorough opinions of the Honorable Douglas W. Herman, we conclude Appellants’ issues merit no relief. The trial court opinions comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of the questions presented. See Interim Opinio n, pp. 26 - 74; AP Opinion, pp. 3 - 9; 1925(a) Opinion, pp. 4 - 7 (finding: PHHC sufficiently demonstrated the location of the Mary Trotter Patent, which controls; PHHC sufficiently demonstrated its chain of title back through the Mary Trotter Patent; Appellants acquired title to all property intersecting the Mary Trotter Patent, as set forth in their respective deeds, by adverse possession; no consentable boundary exists regarding the woodlands where (1) no pre - existing dispute existed that a compromised boundar y resolved, and (2) no evidence of fence, physical barrier, or visible boundary line introduced into evidence; Appellants not bona fide purchasers where they did not conduct a thoroughJ - A09018 - 16

- 4 -

title search to discover mistakes in title). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinions. Order affirmed. President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott joins the memorandum. Judge Platt concurs in the result. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/10/2016ber 2015, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of

AND NOW, 

### this --->.L-- - Appellate Procedure 1931 (c ) , Judge Douglas W. Herman Janet M. Fraker

Defendant vs. Civil Action Plum Holl o w Hunting Club , Inc. , and Douglas Henry,

Plaintiffs Defendants Judge D o uglas W. Herman Larry J. Dillman and Tina M. Dillman, his wife, B o nnie M. Miller, widow , and Duaine A. Ramsey, single, N o . 274-2006

vs. Civil Action Plum Hollow Hunting Club, Inc. ,

Plaintiff Judge Dougl a s W. Herman No. 376-2008 Civil Action ' ' '. '.

. ...

. .. .. ii Hflli ti rt g Club, Inc., and 

# : H'. enry, . ·· Plaintiffs 

## SCANNED 

# • - ' ' f hk )/. . ' -. . . ' \. ,; ; c obRTOF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 39th JUDICIAL DISTRICT



## . , ., .}) }' . OFJ. 1 ENNSYL VANIA -FULTON COUNTY BRANCH

. '. tJ.r: · : / : -\ ) , i f( . · . . ,. ·- , : ' · .. \ . . .

vs. : :- ~ ldFraker, Dulce Burger Hall ,



### . f{ M, Miller, Michael R. · ;: 7;; {iW i ~ v:er and Rhonda R. Weaver his · 

### :.0;:? : : 'o/i fi , Duaine A. Ramsey, single: arid 

# ~t~iJ. fi I,if/ ) ;J!:~ , ~n:ai:e~d Tina M . . : y; ~/?> · · · :.-:: · · . :< <· · : · .. : Defendants Circulated 07/14/2016 01:45 PMThe Prothonotary shall give notice to:

J. McDowell Sharpe, Esq. William C. Cramer, Esq. Donald L. Kornfield, Esq. Michael R. Weaver and Rhonda R. Weaver Duaine A. Ramsey Larry J. Dillman and Tina M. Dillman Bonnie M. Miller PROTHONOT ARY,., CLERNKSOCF 

# oii~RT S , CLERK OF Or1PHA . b 

### ofl o · Er;O Q REGISTER OF WILLS, 

### RECORDEr1 r : i;. · ,J r ;· · . 

### ;~ _· ;. -· · FULTON COUN TY

PENNSYLVANIA 

### FILED 

## OCT 2 2 2015 

# = ~- r : Pursuant to the requirements ofPa. R. Civ. P. 236 (a)(2), (b) and (d), the Prothonotary shall give written notice of the entry 

## of this Order of Court, including a copy of this Opinion and Order of Court

, to eachparty's attorney of record and shall note in the docket the gi v ing ofsuch notice and the time and manner thereof. 

# t ,SS 

## ~' IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Prothonotary of Fulton County shall promptly transmit to the Prothonotary of the Superior Court the records inthese matters, along with the attached Opinion sur Pa. R. App. P. 1925( a ) .("Hunting Club") and Douglas Henry ("Henry") (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"), and

This is a boundary dispute case involving Plaintiffs , Plum Hollow Hunting Club

Opinion sur Pa. R. App. P. 1925(a)

Judge Douglas W. Herman Janet M. Fraker

Defendant vs. No. 40-2009 Civil Action Plum Hollow Hunting Club, Inc .• and Douglas Henry,

Plaintiffs Defendants Judge Douglas W. Herman Larry J. Dillman and Tina M. Dillman, his wife, Bonnie M. Miller, widow, and Duaine A. Ramsey, single, No. 274-2006

vs. PROTHONOTARY. CLER!( OF COURT S CLERK OF ORPH A N S COURT I REGISTER OF WILLS . RE C ORDER Ot DEEDS Civil Action · Plum Hollow Hunting Club, Inc.,

Plaintiff FULTON COUNTY 

# r ( PENNSYLVANIA - ~ FILED \;~ 

## OCT 2 2 2915 

# v: Judge Douglas W. Herman { J. Ronald Fraker, Pulce Burger Hall, Bonnie M. Miller, Michael R. Weaver and Rhonda R. Weaver, 

### his 'wife, Duaine A. Ramsey, single , and Larry J. Dillman and Tina M. Dillman, his wife,

Defendants vs. No. 376-2008 Civil Action Plum Hollow Hunting Club, Inc., and Douglas 

### Henry,

Plaintiffs THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OFT$ 39th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF PENNSYLVANIA -FULTON COUNTY BRANCH2

possession of any unenclosed woodland adjoining the properties, the Court issued a subsequent Order and Opinion setting forth the boundary lines between the Defendants' and Plaintiffs' respective properties. The parties now appeal our decisions. For the reasons set forth below and throughout the issued opinions, we suggest the Superior Court affirm our decisions. PROCEDURAL IDSTORY On September 12, 2006 (no. 274 of2006), November 14, 2008 (no. 376 of2008), and February 5, 2009 '(no. 40 of2009) the Plaintiffs filed complaints. Answers were subsequently filed by the Defendants in the three cases. The Court convened a bench trial on May 18 to May 20, 2011, July 26, 20~ 1, July 29, 2011 and August 25, 2011. After consideration of the evidence of record and the arguments of counsel, the Court issued an Interim Non-Appealable Order and Opinion on February 6, 2014 ("Interim Opinion"). In that Opinion we concluded that pursuant to the Mary Trotter Patent the Plaintiffs hold legal title to those portions of land that overlap with the land described in the Defendants' deeds. Furthermore, we concluded that the Defendants' were entitled to ownership of the intersecting property by way of adverse possession of any improved land. The Court Defendants, J. Ronald Fraker ("Fraker''), Bonnie M. Miller(Miller"), Dulce Burger Hall ("Hall"), Michael R. Weaver and Rhonda R. Weaver ("the Weavers"), Duaine A. Ramsey (''Ramsey"), and Larry J. Dillman and Tina M. Dillman ("the Dillmans") (collectively referred to as "Defendants"). After a bench trial in the above-captioned cases, this Court issued an Interim Non

- Appealable Order and Opinion which decided that pursuant to the Mary Trotter Patent the Plaintiffs hold legal title to those portions ofland that overlap with the land described in the Defendants' deeds and concluded that the Defendants satisfied their burden of proving adverse possession for the land that has been improved. As questions remained regarding adverse3

1 The Mary Trotter Patent is more fully described in the Interim Opinion. 2 "When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim or when multiple parties are involved, the trial court or other governmental unit may enter a final order as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims and parties only upon an express determination that an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire case. Such an order becomes appealable when entered. In the absence of such a determination and entry of a final order, any order or other form of decision that adjudicates fewer than all the claims and parties shall not constitute a final order," Pa. R.A.P. 34l(c). , by a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal on July 31, 2015. At docket no. On July 15, 2015 at docket no. 274 of 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal followed final judgment at docket no. 40 of 2009 and an Order entering verdict in favor of all Defendants. On June 17, 2015 the Court issued an Order certifying the case at docket no. 2 7 4 of 2006 for appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 341(c). 2 On that same date the Court issued an Order entering 2015. The Court subsequently denied all post-trial motions. in interest to Janet M. Fraker ("Janet Fraker Successors"), filed a post-trial motion on February 9, 2015. Mark J. Hale, Cherry 

### D. Hale, Steven . L. Grissinger and Karen J. Grissinger, as successors February 18, 2015. At docket no. 40 of 2009, Plaintiffs filed a post-trial motion on February 18, motion on February 17 , 2015. Ramsey, the Dillmans, Miller, and Hall filed post-trial motions on 376 of 2008, Plaintiffs filed a post-trial motion on February 9, 2015. Fraker filed a post-trial Several post-trial motions were filed in the three cases. At docket nos. 274 of 2006 and deeds that intersects with the Mary Trotter Patent by adverse possession. 1 Miller, Hall, Ramsey, and the Dillmans acquired title to all land described 

### within their respective boundary lines between the Defendants' and Plaintiffs' respective properties, finding that Fraker, and Opinion on January 28 , 2015 ("AP Opinion"), In the AP Opinion, this Court set forth the properties. As the parties failed to come to an agreement the Court issued a subsequent Order whether the Defendants were entitled to ownership of any unenclosed woodland adjoining their possession to allow the parties to come to an agreement. Specifically, the Court did not decide purposely left undecided the location of the boundaries of the propertiesobtained by adverse , .,.. . - " ..""'\



### .. . 

### ,4

that the southern and eastern deed boundaries of [the Dillmans' property] 

### in common with the a residence or fencing the area of the boundary of their actual legal title; and (4) "determining in finding that the Dillmans possessed adversely that encroachment area without construction of property adjoining Plum Hollow Hunting Club's real estate was unenclosed woodland and erred possession by way of tacking from their predecessor-in-title; (3) failing to find that the Dillmans' for the statutory period of 21 years; (2) determining that the Dillmans established adverse Dillmans proved all necessary elements of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence adverse possession. The Hunting Club asserts that the Court erred in: (1) determining that the At docket no. 274 of2006 the Hunting Club raises four issues on appeal, all pertaining to direction as to the location where the Superior Court will find the reasoning for our decision. AP Opinion. We will delineate the issues raised by each party for each distinct case, followed by raised by the parties were discussed in our two prior opinions, i.e., the Interim Opinion and the l 925(a) opinion encompassing the five collective appeals filed by the parties. All of the issues The instant cases all involve similar factual and legal issues and thus we issue this DISCUSSION 2015. 13, 2015 followed by a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal on August 5, Appeal. At docket no. 40 of2009 the Janet Fraker Successors filed a Notice of Appeal on July Appeal; however, the Dillmans failed to file a Concise Stateme n t of Matters Complained of on Complained of on Appeal on August 14, 2015. On July 27, 2015 the Dillmans filed a Notice of followed by a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal on July 23, 2015. On July 23, 2015 Fraker filed a Notice of Appeal followed by a Concise Statement of Matters 376 of 2008, three appeals were filed. On July 15, 2015 Plaintiffs filed 

### a: Notice of Appeal ,5

AP Opinion, and therefore we direct the Superior Court's attention to those Opinions. granting Miller and Hall adverse possession in the Interim Opinion at pages 63 to 

### 70 and in the of the boundary of their actual legal title. The Court previously discussed its reasoning for possessed that encroachment area without construction of a residence or fencing the area outside intersected Henry's real estate, and erred in finding that the Dillmans and Ramsey adversely estate of the Dillmans and Ramsey was unenclosed woodland in the area of their front yards that purposes of establishing adverse possession; and ( 4) failing to find as a material fact that the real years; (3) determining that the Dillmans or Ramsey could tack from their predecessor-in-title for elements of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence for the statutory period of21 evidence; (2) determining that the Dillmans, Ramsey, Miller and Hall proved all necessary Hall who never raised the issue of adverse possession through testimony or submission of other possession. Plaintiffs assert that the Court erred in: (1) granting adverse possession to Miller and At docket no. 376 of2008 Plaintiffs raise four issues on appeal, all dealing with adverse Opinions. . ;!" · Opinion issued on January 28, 2015. Thus, we direct the Superior Court's attention to ' those previous opinions issued, i.e., February 6, 2014 Interim Opinion at pages 63 to 70 and AP · The Court's reasoning as to the issues the Hunting Club now complains of was set forth in its portion of their deed included within the yellow depiction on Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 126 ... " colored green on Plaintiffs' Exhibit 126 ... whereas [the Dillmans] only had legal title to that Club] had superior title to [the Dillman's property] along these common boundaries in the area when there was no showing of adverse possession along those boundaries, and [the Hunting [Hunting Club property] were established by survey reconstruction of Thomas Michael Englerth,

### 6

that Opinion at pages 32 to 56, in addition to the Court's findings of fact on pages 3 to 26. In his its reasoning as to these issues throughout the Interim Opinion and directs the Superior Court to and a trial court lacks jurisdiction to correct errors within a patent. The Court has fully discussed Plaintiffs' expert did not use the required surveying techniques to reconstruct the King patent; the King patent was not recorded among the deed records of Bedford or Fulton County; Court erred in accepting into evidence the Mary Trotter patent and/or the King patent because: addition to the findings of fact outlined on pages 3 to 26. In his fourth issue, Fraker claims the relating to Plaintiffs' legal title are delineated in the Interim Opinion at pages 32 to 56, in failed to submit any proof of ownership. The Court's findings of fact and conclusions oflaw who owns any alleged residue and the property lines encompassing the alleged residue; and describe the location of any alleged residue of ground; failed to identify the particular Plaintiff specifically described within their title deeds ofrecord because Plaintiffs: failed to specifically the Court erred in concluding that Plaintiffs hold any legal title outside of the ground as 63, and therefore we direct the Superior Court to that Opinion . In his third issue, Fraker asserts previously discussed issues relating to bona fide purchasers in its Interim Opinion at pages 

### 56 to Weavers were bona fide purchasers for value of the ground they acquired. This Courthas land described in the Defendants' deeds because Fraker, the Dillmans, Ramsey, Miller and the Mary Trotter Patent the Plaintiffs hold legal title to those portions ofland that overlap with the Opinion at pages 32 to 56. Second, Fraker claims the Court erred in finding that pursuant to the deeds." The reasoning for the Court's conclusion is stated at length in the Court's Interim legal title to those portions of land that overlap with the land described in the Defendants' Court erred in its conclusion " . . . that pursuant to the Mary Trotter Patent the Plaintiffs hold At docket no. 376 of2008 Fraker raises six issues on appeal. First , Fraker asserts the .7

finding in its Interim Opinion that the Janet Fraker Successors did not satisfy their burden of establishing the doctrine of consentable lines because they did not establish a boundary . For a full discussion of this issue we direct the Superior Court's attention to the Interim Opinion at pages 70 to 72. The Janet Fraker Successors also claim that the Court erred in not recognizing the recording statute mandate that any interest in real property be recorded in the county deed records and any interest not recorded is deemed void as to a bona fide purchaser, which the Janet Fraker Successors claim they were. This Court has previously discussed issues relating to bona fide purchasers in its Interim Opinion at pages 56 to 63, and therefore we direct the . Superior Court to that Opinion. The Dillmans have failed to file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on appeal at docket no. 40 of 2009, thus preventing this Court from addressing any specific issues. Therefore , they have waived any issues on appeal. fifth issue, Fraker asserts the Court erred in not concluding that all Plaintiffs' claims for reformation of their title deeds, to include ground outside of that as described within their title deeds of record, are tolled by the 21 year statute of repose . Assuming that Fraker intended to use the word "barred" rather than "tolled," we direct the Superior Court's attention to the Interim Opinion at pages 32 to 56. Lastly, Fraker asserts that the Court erred in ' not dismissing Plaintiffs' cause of action because all necessary and indispensable parties have not been included in the litigation. Having already discussed this issue we direct the Superior Court ' s attention to the Interim Opinion at pages 73 to 74. At docket no. 40 of 2009, the Janet Fraker Successors allege that the Court erred in8

Therefore, this Court respectfully requests the Superior Court affirm this Court's decisions. We submit that no errors were committed in this Court's decisions in these cases. CONCLUSION

# SC A NNED

adverse possession for the land that has been improved. However, questions remain regarding Opinion") which, in part, qecjped that the Defendants have satisfied their burden of proving On February 6, 2014 this Court issued an Interim Non-Appealable Order and Opinion ("Interim Duaine A. Ramsey ("Ramsey"), and Larry 

### J. Dillman and Tina M. Dillman ("the Dillmans"). Bonnie M. Miller ("Miller' ' ), Michael R. Weaver and Rhonda R. Weaver (''the Weavers"), ("Hunting Club") and Douglas Henry ("Henry''), and Defendants, J . Ronald Fraker ("Fraker") , · This is a boundary dispute case involving Plaintiffs, Plum Hollow Hunting Club OPINION Defendants Judge Douglas W. Herman Larry J. Dillman and Tina M. Dillman, his wife, Bonnie M. Miller, widow,and Duaine A. Ramsey, single, vs. ~o. 274-2006 Civil Action Plum Hollow Hunting Club, Inc.,

Plaintiff Judge Douglas W. H~~ - J. Ronald Fraker, Dulce Burger Hall, Bonnie M. Miller, Michael R. Weaver and Rhonda R. Weaver, his wife, Duaine A. Ramsey, single, and Larry J. Dillman and Tina M. Dillman, his wife ,

Defendants vs. 

# f FU LT ON COUNTY 

# t PEN1f et~A N IA ~· . 

## JAN 2 8 2015 P ROTHONOTARY. CL ER K O F COURTS, CLERK OF ORPH AN S C O URl REGISTER O F W ILL S , R ECORDER OF DE ED S No. 376-2008 Civil Action Plum Hollow Hunting Club, Inc., and Douglas Henry,

Plaintiffs THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 39th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF PENNSYLVANIA- FULTON COUNTY BRANCH



## ) . Circulated 07/14/2016 01:45 PM2 I Regarding Fraker and his grantees' title the Court stated: "Except for the adverse possession and the doctrine of consentable lines, any interference between the Survey of 1976 and the Mary Trotter patent is resolved in favor of those holding title through Mary Trotter." Interim Opinion at 54. The parties have failed to come to an agreement and therefore the issue is now before the Court. Defendants were entitled to ownership of any unenclosed woodland adjoining their properties. allow the parties to come to an agreement. 1 Specifically, the Court did not decide whether the undecided where the boundaries of the properties obtained by adverse possession would lie to property by way of adverse possession of any improved land but the Court purposely left Furthermore, we concluded that the Defendants' were entitled to ownership of the intersecting to those portions of land that overlap With the land described in the Defendants' deeds. that Opinion we concluded that pursuant to the Mary Trotter Patent the Plaintiffs hold legal title counsel the Court issued an Interim Non-Appealable Order and Opinion on February 6,2014. In 2011 and August 25, 2011. After consideration of the evidence of record and the arguments of The Court convened a bench trial on May 18 to May 20, 2011, July 26, 2011, July 29, case no. 40 of 2009. 2008. On March 18, 2009 the Defendants filed an Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim in in case no. 274 of 2006. On January 20, 2009 the Defendants filed an Answer in case no. 376 of the Plaintiffs filed complaints. On November 2, 2006 the Defendants Dillmans filed an Answer (no. 274 of 2006), November 14, 2008 (no. 376 of2008), and February 5, 2009 (no. 40 of2009) This Opinion relates to case nos. 274 of2006 and 376 of 2008. On September 12, 2006 PROCEDURAL HISTORY issue is now before the Court. to reach an agreement as to those terms. The parties have failed to reach an agreement and so the ruling on where the boundaries between the parties' respective properties lie to allow the parties adverse possession of any unenclosed woodland adjoining the properties. The Court deferred . )DISCUSSION For purposes of this Opinion we incorporate all findings of fact and conclusions of law delineated in the Court's Interim Opinion. 2 In the Interim Opinion we found that the Dillmans,

· Ramsey, Miller , and Dulce Burger Hall ("Fraker Defendants") have satisfied their burden of proving adverse possession for the land that has been improved. In order to decide the boundaries of the properties we now must decide whether the Defendants have obtained title to any adjoining unenclosed woodland within the Mary Trotter patent ("Encroachment Area") by adverse possession. As we expounded upon in the Court's Interim Opinion, adverse possession is defined as "dominion over the property." Bride v. Robwood Lodge, 713 A.2d 109, 112 (Pa . Super. Ct. 1998). To establish adverse possession, the person asserting it must prove actual , continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious; distinct and hostile possession of the land which it seeks title to for a period of 21 years. Moore v . Duran , 687 A.2d 822 , 828 (Pa. Super . Ct 1996) .

· "Actual possession of property may be established in connection with the maintenance of a residence , by cultivation of the land , by [ e]nclosure of the land, or by making improvements to the land and paying property taxes." Moore, 687 A.2d at 828; see also Parks v . Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 152 A. 682, 684 (Pa. 1930) (''temporary acts on the land , without an intention to seat it for residence and cultivation or other permanent use consistent with the nature of the property are riot the actμal possession required"). Proof of "actual possession" is not to be mistaken for 2 Pages 63 to 70 ef'the Interim Opinion discuss adverse possession . 3 The instant Opinion pertains only to case nos. 274 of2006 and 376 of2008 and focuses on the issue remaining from the Interim Opinion, i.e., the boundaries between the parties' respective properties in the context of ownership by adverse possession. This matter is now ready for a· decision .4

woodlands in connection with their residence or the part of the woodlands that is cultivated . belongs. A property owner can satisfy this requirement by making ordinary use of the woodland by residence or culti vation of a part of the tract of land to which the woodland Super. Ct. 2009) . In "dealing with a woodland, a person must establish actual possession of the strict standard for proving adverse possession . " Shaffer v . O ' Toole, 964 A.2d 420 , 424 (Pa . When the claimed property is woodland, Pennsylvania courts have adopted "a rather Id . (quoting Inn L e 'Daerd~ 360 A.2d at 213-14) . [ and where one party] enters upon unoccupied land, under a deed or title, and holds adversely , his possession is construed to be coextensive with his deed or title, and the true owner will be deemed to be disseised to the extent of the boundaries described in that title. Still, his possession beyond the limits of his actual occupancy is only constructive . If the true owner be · at the same time in actual possession of part of the land , claiming title t o the whole, he has the constructive possession of all the land not in the actual possession of the intruder, and this though the owner's actual possession is not within the limits of the defective title. in the absence of any actual possession by the true owner." Arcadi~ 576 A.2d at 1117. colorable title is co-extensive with the boundaries of the instrument under which he claims only entry was by color of title"). It must be noted however, ''the possession of one who has a (i . e . , for twenty-one years), may thereby hold constructive possession of the whole tract ifhis possession, id . , a disseisor who enters upon and cultivates part of a tract for the limitations period · ("[a]lthough it contributes nothing to the fiber of title as affecting the adverse character of Super. Ct. 1994); see also Arcadia Co .. v . Peles, 576 A.2d 1114, 1117 (Pa. Super . Ct. 1990) constructive possession of entire tract described therein." Beck v. Beck, 648 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa. : . . period, of a portion of property described in the invalid instrument , may thereby establish enters under ' color of title' and demonstrates actual possession for the requisite twenty-one year 360 A.2d 209, 214 (Pa. Super . Ct 1976) . However, importantly for this case, "a disseisor who proof of constructive possession under the guise of color of title. Inn Le'Daerda, Inc. v. Davis , ) 

### )5

Olewine v. Messmore, 18 A. 495, 496 (Pa. 1889); see also Bride v. Robwood Lodge, 713 A.2d 109, 112 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) ("[s]ince the disputed parcel is undeveloped woodland, actual possession is established by either erecting a residence or by enclosing and cultivating the

. ' property"); Moore, 687 A.2d at 828 ("[a]ctual possession may thus be established by enclosing arid cultivating the tract ofland of which the woodland is a part without erecting a residence; or possession may be established by erecting a residence where there is a clear designation of the boundaries of the land surrounding such residence"); Hole v. Rittenhouse, 37 Pa. 116, 117 (1860) ("actual possession may be a residence without cultivation, or by enclosure and cultivation without residence; and where either these is, the use of adjoining woodland by the disseisor, as farmers generally use woodland adjoining their farms, is actual and not constructive possession of such woodland"). In determining whether a claimant has established the requisite 21 years of possession the concept of tacking may be applicable . Inn Le'Daerda, 360 A . 2d at 214. Tacking consists of combining the possession of a claimant with that of his predecessor in title and it is permitted where the possessions are continuous. Id. Furthermore, "[ e Jach predecessor must have claimed title to the property in dispute, and in transferring to his successor must have purported to include it. Id . That is, the deed to the · successor must contain a description of the land claimed. See id.

. In the Interim Opinion we stated "[t]he Court agrees with the Defendants that adverse possession has been satisfied for the land that has been improved.v' and stated our reasons why, citing testimony by Allen Henry and Fraker as well as other photographic evidence presented in Exhibits 1-2 through 1-9. Such improvements on the property of the Fraker Defendants land include dwellings and structures on theland, driveways, and neatly groomed front and back yards. Thus, the Fraker Defendants have established the requisite elements of adverse 3 Interim Opinion at 67. 

### )6

possession for improved land. We now discuss purported improvements to any unenclosed woodland adjoining the Fraker Defendants' properties to determine whether the Fraker Defendants have obtained title to that property by adverse possession and to set boundaries between the properties. Plaintiffs did not actually possess the portions of land where the Encroachment Area intersects with the Fraker Defendants' properties from the time Fraker acquired the property. Nor do the disputed areas consist of unenclosed woodland. Therefore, Fraker's and the Fraker Defendants' actual and constructive possession of the disputed land that is described within their deeds is sufficient to establish adverse possession of the land, as set forth more fully below . Beck, 648 A.2d at 343; Arcadia, 576 A.2d at 1117. I. 

### Bonnie Miller Fraker acquired his property by deed dated June 28, 1976. On May 9, 1985 Fraker conveyed the property to Miller by deed ("Miller Deed"). Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit on November 17, 2008. Therefore, Miller was in possession of her property for over 21 years prior to the commencement of the action. Exhibit 124, 

### a reconstruction of the . Mary Trotter Patent, shows that a small portion of Miller's front yard is within the Encroachment Area. As we alluded to in the Interim Opinion, Miller has established adverse possession of all improved land by way of photographic evidence in Exhibits I-2 through I-9 and the testimony of Fraker and Allen Henry. The small portion of the front yard that is within Encroachment Area consists of land that has been improved : That is, there is no unenclosed woodland within the perimeter described in the Miller Deed that overlaps with the Encroachment Area . Plaintiffs expert witness, Mr. Witter testified that Miller's trailer, outbuildings, and other improved areas of her property are the portions of property that are within the Encroachment Area.7 III. Duaine Ramsey On January 27, 1989 Fraker conveyed the Ramsey property to Ubertie and Geraldine Shockey and on October 23, 2001 Shockey conveyed this lot to Ramsey. Plaintiff's expert witness Mr. Witter testified that the improved areas of Ramsey's property lie within the Encroachment Area. Mr. Witter did not testify to the exact location of the intersection of the Encroachment Area and Ramsey's property, as he testified that "we have no exact distance per se." Based on the testimony of Allen Henry pertaining to the location of the Mary Trotter line Plaintiff argues that 

### Inn Le'Daerda stands for the proposition that Miller did not establish adverse possession. We disagree. In that case the Superior Court noted thattrailers were installed by Marshall's predecessors in title on a disputed strip of land, they remained there, and the property was maintained, The Court ruled that adverse possession was established by tacking · Marshall's possession with that of his predecessors in title which equated to more than 21 years. Like 

### Inn Le'Daerda, Fraker installed a trailer in the Encroachment Area and Miller maintained it when she acquired the property from Fraker and therefore Fraker's possession tacks onto Miller's possession for over 21 years . As such, Miller has acquired title to all land described within the Miller Deed by adverse possession. II. Dulce Hall On May 15~ 2003 Dulce Hall acquired his property from Miller who conveyed part of the property that she acquired form Fraker ; Hall's property is comprised of the property that Miller acquired from Fraker. Just as Fraker's possession tacked onto Miller's possession of the property, Hall's possession will tack onto Miller's possession, as the deeds purport to convey the same property . By way of tacking , Hall has acquired title to all land described within the Miller Deed by adverse possession. ' , ) )8

the house (Fraker Exhibit 1-3) and asked where the Dillmans' property intersected with the Mary and garage (Fraker Exhibit 1-1) , the Dillmans' side yard (Fraker Exhibit 1-2), and a front view of front yard is within the Encroachment Area . When shown photographs of the Dillmans' house would lie within the Encroachment Area. Exhibit 124 shows that only a portion of the Dillmans' that the house was there prior to the Dillmans acquisition of the property. Aside from the Dillmans' driveway, 

### Mr. Witter did not identify any other portion of the Dillmans' property that physical possession of any land within the Encroachment area. His testimony also establishes N.T. May 19, 2011 at 116. Allen Henry, a plaintiff witness, believes that the Dillmans were in Q. Before we move on, who was in actual physical possession of the Dillman property when this action was filed by the plaintiffs in 2009? A. Dillman was in actual physical possession of whatever is inside the Mary Trotter boundary in my opinion , He occupied-it ' s my understanding he occup i ed the house and so he was also 

### in physical possession of that house, but at the time he purchased [it] I understand the title was still in someone through Mary Trotter because the house was on the property that was conveyed to him by Fraker. The house is on that property. to the following: Interim Opinion, establishes that the Dillmans own all of the property described in their deed that intersects with with the Encroachment Area by way of adverse possession. Allen Henry testified · testimony of Allen Henry, along with the photographic evidence which we discussed in the Fraker conveyed the Dillmans property to the Dillmans on September 26, 1986. The IV. The Dillmans title to all land described within the Miller Deed by adverse possession . that Fraker owned it as we concluded in the Interim Opinion: Therefore, Ramsey has acquired property that is within the Encroachment Area is improved and has been improved since the time and Ramsey's house, being parallel to Plum Hollow Road. Thus, the portion of the Ramsey and Exhibit 124, the Mary Trotter line crosses the Ramsey property between Plum Hollow Road 

### ) • "9

pursuant to Fraker Exhibit A-1. property that lies outside of the Encroachment Area, the boundary is established by the black line by adverse possession. As to the boundary line between the Dillmans and the Hunting Club's acquired title to all land described within their Deed that intersects with the· Encroachment Area Encroachment Area is the black line on Fraker Exhibit A-1. Accordingly, the Dlllmans have establishes that the boundary between the Hunting Club and the Dillmans that lies outside the is displayed as the black line on Fraker Exhibit A-1. Mr. Englerth's undisputed testimony Dillmans' deed. He concluded that the property line between the Hunting Club and the Dillmans monuments corresponding to the property lines described in the Hunting Club deed and the 

### Mr. Witter. 

### Mr. Englerth testified that in constructing the exhibit he found numerous field construction of the line and his testimony was not challenged by the Plaintiffs' expert witness, deeds of the Plaintiffs and Defendants in the case, and he further testified in detail regarding his this boundary line. Mr. Englerth testified that he constructed Fraker Exhibit A-1 based upon the Hunting Club's property that is not within the Encroachment Area. 

### Mr. Englerth testified as to There is also a question relating to the boundary of the Dillmans' property and the possession of that property tacks onto the possession of their predecessor in title, Fraker. purported to convey property within the Encroachment Area and therefore the Dillmans' possessed the land. As with the other deeds the deed conveying the property to the Dillmans intersects with the Encroachment Area is improved and therefore the Dillmans have adversely N.T. May 19, 2011 at 115. Thus, the Court concludes that the area of the Dillman's property that Trotter line, Allen Henry testified that "it is clear I think it is between the garage and the road." 

# . ' )10 The boundaries of the parties' respective properties will be set according to the foregoing discussion. An Order consistent with this Opinion is attached. CONCLUSION 

## . . ' ) ~ 1 , J

### " " i 

# j 1 - - -- - - EXHIBIT l IN TERIM NO N- APPEALABL E ORDE R 

### Y /J NOW TffiS . {, day of 

### F eb ru ary 20 1 4, th e 

### Co urt h ereb y aiders that 

### th e attac h e d Ju d ge : D o ug l as W . He im an Larry J. D illman and Ti n a M . D i ll man,' Hi s wifo , Bo nn ie M, Mllfo1 · , widow an d D u alne A . Ram s ey, sing le D efendant s N o. 274-200 6 C

vs . 

# . Civi l A ction

- Law P lum H o ll ow Hunti n g C lub, In c .,

P fo intiff I N T HE C OURT O F COMMON P i EAS O F TH E 3 9 TH JlJ'DlCIAL DISTRJCT · O F P E N N S YLV AN I A ~ FU LT ON COlJNTY :BRA NCH Judge: Doug l as W . Herman v s. J. Ronald Fraker , Du l ce Burger Hall , Bo n ni e M. M i ll er , Dualn e A. Ramsay , s in g l e Ramse y, single, an d Larry J . Dill man and Tin a M . D ill man , ht s wi fe , Defe n dants N o. 376~2 0 08 ~ C 

### ) P l ain tiffli C ivil A cti o n -L aw Pl um H o ll ow H unti n g Cl ub, Inc . , And Do ug l a s H e nry ,

lN 'l ' HE COURT O F COMMON PLEA S OF THE 39TH JUDICIAL D ISTRI CT 

### OF PENNSYLVANIA M FU L TON COUNT Y BRANCH J ud g e: D o u glas W . H erman D e f e n dant Janot M . Fraker , N o . 4 0 of 20 09 C v s . Pl ai ntiffs Civ il Acti o n - Law Pl um Hollo w H un ting C lub, In c., An d Do ug l as Henry>

IN TH E COURT OF OOMMON PLEAS O }i' TH E ;3 9 T I-I 

### ro n r c nr, DI S TRl CT

O F P E NNS YL VAN IA - FULT ON C O UNTY BRA NC H •I Circulated 07/14/2016 01:45 PM2

T h e Proth o notary s h all give notice 

### to : J. McDow e ll Sharp e , Es qu ire Willi am C . C rame r , Es qu i re Jos eph 

### A. Ma cal u so, E squ ire D avid A. Ody, E s qui re, for T ina M. Di l lm an Pro S e D efen dant Larry 

### J. Dillman Pro Se Defendant B o nni e M . Miller Matthew S e mb ach, Es quire By the Court, Pursuant to the requirements of P a . R.C . P . 236 ( a )(2 } ,(b), ( d ) , th e Prothonotary shall give wri tte n notice of th e entry of this Order, including a copy o f thi s Order , to e ach parties' attorn e y of re cord and shall note in the docket th e giving of such n otice an d the time and mann e r thereof. Pe nn syl v ania. o'clock , p , m , in the Courtroom of th e Ful t on County Courthouse, McConn e llsbur g, app e ar before th e Court for a settlem e nt conferenc e on Tues d ay, February 25 , 2 01 4 at 2 :30 TRE C O U RT HEREBY di rect s th at couns e l for the parti e s and the p r o se d e fendants will remaining bo un daries . posses s ion the Court request th at th e parti e s atte mpt to reac h a mutual agre eme nt s to . th e not d ec i de all th e i ssues rais e d by the parties . Specifical l y, with re gard to the issu e of a d verse Opinion b e filed of re cord. Thi s is not a final appealable O rder fo r th e re as on that th e Court did 

### )

)PPINJON H o n o r able D o ugla s W. Herman



### L arry J . Dill man and Tin a M. D i llm an , 

### his wife, 

### Bonn i e M. Miller, wid ow , an d Du iane A. R amse y , s ingle



### D ef endan t s N o , 27 4 of 200 6-C 

### v. C ivil A c tion - 

### Law P l um Hollo w H un ti n g Club, Inc., and,

Plainti ff lN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 39TH JUDICIAL DI S TRICT .

OF PENNSYLV.ANfA ..::: FULTON COUNTY 

### .BRANCH Honor ab le 

### Do ug l as W. Herman ' J . 

### R o nald Fraker, Du ke Burg er H al l , · Bonnie M . M ill er , M ich ae l R. 

### W eav er and Rho nda R. 

### We aver, hi s wi fe, 

### Duaine' A . Rams ey, single, 

### and Larry J. Dillman and . T i na 

### NI\ Dillman, his wife,

Defendants No. 3 76 of 20 0 8

- C 

### v. Ci vi l A c ti on .; L aw P l u m 

### Ho llow Hun ti ng Cl ub, In c. , and, D o u g la s A . H~

Plaintiffs IN TH E COURT OF COMMON PLEA S O F THE 39 TH JUDI C IAL DISTRICT

OF PENNSYLVANIA'- FUl,TON COUNT Y BRA NC H: 

### H on o rab le Do ug l as W. H erman J ane t M. 

### Fraker

Defendan t . 

### v. Ci v il Actio n - Law P l um 

### H ollow Hunti ng C h 1 b, Inc. , and, Dou g l a s A. H em ,y

Plaintiff s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS O F THE 39TM JUDICI A L DIS T RIC T

OF PENNSYLVANIA-FULTON CO U NTY BRA NC H 

## , 

## ·2 . I A s m ore fu l l y discus se d i rfra, the Defe n dan ts hav e don e no thing to rebu t the fo regoing con c lu sio n s of fac t. 

### Fin dings o f l?act 1 l aw : 

### the arg um e nts o f counsel , the Court enter s the follow i ng fin ding s of fa ct and conc lusio n s not appear o r pre sen t an y te s tim o ny. Upo n consi d erati o n of all evid e nce of record an d 131 for D e fendant Duain e Ram se y. The re maining d e fendants , despite pro p er notic e , did to 114 for Defendant L arry J , Dil lman an d Notes of T esti m ony) Jul y 2 9, 2 01 1 , p, 11 4 to o w n , the y did tes ti fy on th e ir ow n beh al f , See No tes of Tes ti m o n y, July 29, 2011, p , 74 a ctively particip ate in tho cross ex amin atio n of witnesses o r pres e nt any witness e s of their Sharp e and Sharp e , LL P . Defendant Jan e t M , Fraker 

### w as repres e nte d by Joseph 

## A · M a caluso, Esqul re and Defe n d an t J . R on al d Fr aker was re pres e nte d by Willi am C. Cram er , Esquire . Whil e D e fen d ants, L arry J. D illman and Du ain e R am s ey did n o t Inc. 

### and Dougl a s 

### A. H e nry w ere repres ente d by J. McD o we ll , Sharpe and 

### the l aw 

### firm o f 18! 2 009. In N o . 3 76

- 2 008 

### D efenda n t's Answer was 

### fil e d on January 2() , 2 0 09. I n No . 200~-274 

### D efendant La r r

y D l llman 's Answer was file d N o vemb er 2, 200 6 . The C o urt conven e d a be nch 

### tri al on May 18 to 

### May 20 1 2011, Ju l y 26, 2011 , July 29 , 2011 and August 2 5 , 2 011. Throu g h o ut 

### trial Plaintiffs , 

### Plum Hollow Hunting Club, D efenda n t's 

### A n s wer w ith New Matter a nd Co unte rcla i m in N o. 4 0 ~ 20 0 9 was filed Marc h 2 008), and F ebruary 5, 2 009 (N o . 40 -2 009) th e Pl aintiffs filed Compla i nts, Th e s i mult ane ou s ly . On Septemb er 1 2 , 2006 (No . ~006- 2 74) 1 N o v e mb er 14 , 2 008 (N o , 376 - B e fore th e C ourt are three s ep arate caus es of a c ti on th at are b ei n g consid ered Proc e dural 

### Histocr )



### )3

E xhi b it 22 . County, comp l e ted a 

### s urv e y o f the 

### Mary Trotter Warrant on March 1 2, 1 794 . Plain f tffe' Register under :fue 

### headi n g "Bedford County" . Pla in t iffs' Exhibit 2 4 . 7 . · Geor ge Wo o ds Jr., i n his capacity as Deputy Surveyor for Bedford 6 . The Tro tter-Fi s h warrants were index e d an d regi s tere d in th e W arran t County . P laintiffs ' Exhi b it JOO . l and adj o ini n g 

### land g r ante d to 

### Mary Tr otter the s ame 

### day i n Dublin 

### To w nship , B edfo rd 

### 5 . The warran t is s u e d t o E l w i n Fi s h on 

### Marc h 1 , 1794, was fo r 4 00 acres of County. Plaintifft' Exhi b it 2 3 . land a djoinin g land granted to John Trotter the s ame day in Dub li n Town s h i p , Bedford 

### 4 . Th e warr ant iss u ed to 

### Mary Trotter o n 

### March 1 , 1794 w as for 4 0 0 ac res of Cou n ty . Plai n tiffs, Exhib it 42 . 3 , The warrant is s ued to John Trotter on March 

### 1 , 1 79 4 was for 4 0 9 acres o f la n d adjoining l and granted to William Rh ea the same day 

### in Dublin 

### Town s hi p, Bedford Fulto n County), Pennsylvan ia. 

### each se cured 

### a warrant for 4 0 0 

### e c res of land in Dubl in Township, Bedford County ( n ow 2 . John Tr otter, 

### Mary Trotter, and E l win F i sh (h ereinafter "Irotter-Fish ' ') Exhibi t 25. .. T r otter, and E l w i n F i s h was proc esse d by the L and Offic e on March 1, 1794 an d resu l ted · in th e issu anc e of a warr ant for John Trotter , Mary Trotter , and E lwin Fish . Plaintiffs I I. 

### An ap pli catio n for thi rty (3 0 ) w arr ants, i n cl u ding John Tro tte r , 

### Mary4 8 . The M ary Tro tter Warran t w a s pate nted for 440 ac re s plus a s i x p erce nt (6 % ) all ow ance fo r roa d s , S aid p ate nt w as e nr o lled o n June 2 6 1 \ 180 5. Plai ntiffs ' Exh ibit 20. 9. G eo rg e Wo o d s Jr., in hi s capa city a s D eputy Survey or for B ed ford C o un ty , co mplete d a survey of th e J o hn Trotter Warrant on M atch 1 2, 1 794 . Plaintiffs ' Exh i b it 4 1. 10 . Th e Jo hn Tr otter W an- an t w a s patented for 4 25 acre s p l us a s i x p e rc e nt (6% ) allo wan ce for roads . S aid p ate n t w as e ntered o n S epte mb er 30 th, 1 80 5 . P la i n tiffe ' E xhib tt4 0. 1 1. G eo r g e Woods J r . , in his capaci ty as D eputy S urv e y o r fo r B e dfo rd Co un ty, c o mpl e ted a su rve y of th e E l w in Fi s h W arr an t on Marc h 1 2 , 1 794. Pla t ntiffs ' ) · Exh ibit 1 00, p . 2. ·

1 2 . Th e E lwi n F ish W arran t w as p ate nted to r 436 ac res and 34 p erc hes pl us a si x p erce nt ( 6% ) all owan c e for r oads. Said p ate n t w as e nro ll e d on Ju ne 25th, 1 805 . P la int iffs' Exhibi t 100, p. 1.



### · 13 . The 

### Trotter- Fi s h p ate nts were in dexe d 

### an d e n tered i n to 

### th e Pate n t R egister . P laintiffs ' Exh ib it 21, p. 1

- 2 . 1 4 . Th e d escri pti o n in th e pate nt o f th e M 1:11y Trotter W arrant to Ez e kie l Ki n g co n t ain s . err ors such th at the p ate nt doe s n ot cl ose. All c alls , co ur ses an d di stan ces in th e Mary Trotte r s urv e y are th e same as those in th e 

### Mary T r otter p ate nt. Pla intiffs 'Exh ibits 2 0, 22 . 1 5 . T he Mary Trotter s urvey and the Jo hn Tr o tter s u rvey share a p art of a common boun d ary wi th th e bearing i n th e J o hn T r otter s urvey callin g for North 56 W e st.5 21. 

### B y making the adj u s tme n t s in the cours e s an d a d justing fo r th e c l o s u re erro r , th e 

### Mary Tr otter p ate n t d es c ription cl o ses , the survey is mi n o red, and th e plotte d a creage of the pate nt is 467.67 ac res . 

### Plain l i/fe' Bxh ib it 1 46 . No tes of T es t imony, July 26, 2 0 1 1 , p. 

### 15. 20 . After the course is co rrecte d 

### to matc h the John Trotter bearing and the course is transpo s ed to mirro r th e an g l e on th e surv e y , th ere is an erro r of cl o sure o f 

### 25. 7 7 perches along th e eas tern bo un dary of the Mary Trotter boundary. 

### Plai n tiffs ' Exhibi t 12 1 . 1 6 , On the d epiction shown o n th e 

### M ary Trotter s urvey , the angle betw e en the li n e with bearing North 25 Eas t and th e line wi th bearin g North 4 6 We s t i s n e arly ri gh t an gl e in the offic i al s urvey. 

### Plaintiffi ' Exhibits 22J 

### 121. 1 7 . A p l o t of the 

### M ary Trotter pate nt using N orth 4 6 W e s t shows an ang l e that is n o t a rig h t ang l e b u t rath er an o btuse angl e . Holdi n g that cours e 

### to N o rth 46 W est moves th e p r operty lin es on th e a djacent boundary betw e en 

### Mary Tro tter and E l win Fish to the error an d chan ging the course 

### to North 6 4 W est makes th e line matc h the histo ric al and exis tin g p r operty li nes. 

### Plaintiffs' B xh i bi t 1 4 6. 18. T h e T h omas Stinson Pate nt , which 

### Hes to th e s o uth o f this cou r s e and bearing , a s more tu il y d e scribed I nfr a , made the trans p osition fro m N orth 46 Wes t 

### to No rth 64 West. The Dee d . of 

### 1827 an d th e D e ed of 1865 make a similar change. l 9 . Tran s position of digits i n a numb er is a common e rr o r in drafting a surv e y . The b e arin g in the MaryTrotter surv e y c all s for So u th 

### 56 W e st 

### Pla intiffs ' B xhibtts 3 9, 40. 

### )6 l Ref erred to as tho "Hom"

Relatin g to the

- l oc ati on o f the Mary Tro tter Patent 23. G eo r g e Woods Jr. in his c ap ac i ty as D epu ty Su rveyo r for B edf ord C o u n ty , comp lete d the surv e ys o n March 1 2 , · 1 7 9 4 u p o n 1:he "Tro tter-Fi sh " warr ants i ss u e d o n March I> 17 9 4 , with the Mary Tr o tter warrant d ep e n ding o n the Jo hn Tr otter warran t an d the E lwi n F ish d epe n di n g on the 

### Mary 'Irotterwerran t ; the Jo h n Trotter w arrant cal l s for the Mary Tr otter warrant an d the Mary Tr otter w arrant 

### call s for the Elwin Fi sh warrant. 

### Pla i n tiffs ' Exhibit 12 1. 2 4 . Plaintiff's expert, Timothy Witter, wa s ab l e t o loc ate s ufficient p oi n ts to ) locate the M ary Tr otte r p atent, an d the John Tro tter and E l w in Fish p aten t s , wh ich h e us e d to lo c ate th e Mary Trotter pate n t. Mo re spec ifi call y :

a . He locate d a p oint at a common co mer, re ferred to as the "F o ur Corners " i n whi c h the north west corner o f the Mary Tro tter patent 

### and th e southw est com er o f th e Elw i n Fish pate n t m e et 

### the northeastern c o m er o f th e Thomas Sti nson p ate n t an d the s outh eas tern comer of the Ch arl e s S e w e ll pate nt. 

### Plai n tiffs' Exhi b it 12 3 .

b. He l o cate d a p lanted ston e in th e western bound ary of th e Elwin Fi s h p ate nt. 

### P lai n tiffs' Exhibit 1 22.

c . Th e existe n ce of fe nc e fra g me n ts ad j ac en t to th e are a des c ri b ed by 

### too Deed o f 1 865 2 • 

### P lain tiffs' Exhlbtt s 124, _ 1 27 , 13 3 d , The location of the Survey of 18 65, 

### P lat n tiffs 'Exhibits 60, 123. 22 . The 

### Mary Trotter Patent is the final 

### li nk i n the chain of titl e for P lainti ff Plum Hollow Hunting C l u b , Inc., Plaintiff Dou g l a s 

### A. He nry an d D e fendant J an et M. Fraker . 

### )

### 7

(P la i n t iffs' Exhi bit 22) an d as s till e xi s ts on the ground no w pr ov id e s a p h y si cal limitation 2 7 . 

### T h e exi sten ce o f th e s tre am a s s hown on th e 

### Surv ey of M ary Trotter in th e c h ain oftitl ~ refe rre d to as th e "H e nry F arm" . Ex hibit 58. On 

### F ebt.t:1ary 26, 1869, Ramsey conveyed to William , P e ter s the parce l no rth o f the road ~th 

### a- des c ri pti on u sing 

### adloiners , Plaintiffs' E xhib it 5 9. Th i s parc el i s now Littl eton R oad to :tl;.o m a s Walkeu_ln 

### the Deed of 1865 as demonstrated b y P lain tiff's co mm o n 

### b o und ary 'be twe e n th e two tracts . R amsey conv eyed the parce l s o uth of th e (Plain t iffs ' Exhi b it 60) subdi vi d ed a parcel ; of land out of th e Thom a s S ti ns on su rv e y i nto a trac t wi th three ( :3~·c o u rses in th e · Li ttl e ton Road as a ne w 

### mo nu men t , op erating a s th e E lwln Fis h an d the uorth em 

### boundary of'the 

### Mary Trotter p ate n t run s al on g the south ern b oun d ary o f th e E l win Fi s h pate nt. Plaint iffs ' B xh i b it 1 31 .

. 26 . · 

### A surv ey mad e fo r Ephr aim Ramsey by A.J . Fot~ on N ov emb er 2 4, l 865 2 5. M ary Tr otter ' s northwest co mer ls the same as the s outhw est c omer o f I ) ' I o ak. Pla i nti

ffs' Exhf bJt 123 . · ,, 

### · The co mer 

### a greed on, 

### with De fe ndant J ... R o nal d 

### Fraker at 

### a whi te 

### h . : r. an d Th e location of the 

### Holland tract. P la intiffs' Bxh ib i ts 54, 123, JI 7 ; g , 

### ,. Exh ibtt 12 4 Tro tter patent at the Horn on the South 25 W~ s t (North 25 E a st). 16 p erc h lin e , P la int iffs ' and w a s 

### a ble ~ o e s t ab li s h th e l oc ation o f that 

### boundary lin e . Plain tiffs ' E xh i bit 125

· f. · H is lo c atio n of the tribu tary of th e f.lum Run in th e are a that wou l d cro ss the e as tern boundary of th e Th om a s S tin so n p ate nt/westeni b o undary of the Mazy

e . H e s urve yed al o n g the s o uthern border o f th e J o hn Tro tter p aten tI t

8 a se c ond tract to th e north c onv e ye d to Jam e s Ap p l eb y ( here i nafter " Appl eby Traer) i n ( h ere in after ' ' A .G . Kerlin Trac t" ) in 1 9 1 7 , cont ai nin g nin e ty ( 90) acres , more or les s, and m a d e b y Ow en H. Ander s on and Opa l, his wi fe , w ith on e trac t conv eyed to A.G . Kerlin H oll o w ") can be tr aced to tw o (2 ) adjoinin g tr act s of l an d fi rst des c ribe d b y a subdi v ision 3 2 . Th e re cord title fo r P lu m Hollo w H u n tin g Club , In c, (here inafter " Plum dis cuss e d irfr

a . . Re l ati ng to Pl um. H o llo w H un ting C lub , In c . ' s C h ain o f! ltle to Ow en And er s on Trotter p ate nt as dis cus se d i :iffea an d th e n orth ern portion of'th eAppl eby Tr act of Plum Ho ll ow' s real 

### e st ate is al s o l o c ate d 

### wi th in the boundary of the M ary Trotter paten t a s 3 I. A ll o f D efen d an t-J ane t M . Fr ake r' s real e st ate ls locate d w ithin th e 

### M ary T es ti mony, 

### Ju ly 2 6, 2011, p. 14 8. · 30. · The loc ati on of

. th e 

### M ary Tr otter pate n t i s fi x ed a s se t fo rth on Ex hibi t A o f 

### Plai h tiffe' Exhi bit J

2 1 and s upporte d by Platn t iffs 'B xh i bits 1'22 ~ 12 5. : ~ 

## . re cent m etes and bo u n d s description o f D e f en d ant J . Ronald Fr aker' s title; Se e Notes of 29 . Def

e nd ants ' ex pe rt Thom a s E n g le rth> spec i fic al ly agreed to the Pl aintiffs' e xpert location. o f the Dee d o f 18 6 5 which constitutes, u nti l ths Surve y of 191 6, the mo st S ti n s o n 

### ' s s urvey which al s o fail ed 

### t

a includ e the ro a d fr onta ge. re g ardin g th e road in the Hom area th ereby concurrin g with hi s proc esso r Th omas tho se in th e we s tern b o und ary o f the Mary Trotter su rv e y . Plaintljfs' & hibit J 33. The 

### Walker descriptiot1 i nclud e s the L ittleton Road as a m o nument on th e north but 

### is silent 2 8 . The cours e s d e scribin g the ea stern b oundary of th e Walker tra ct m atch th at re quirea th e s tream to in ter se ct the w estern boundary of the Hom o f Mary Trotter , P la tntiffe J 

### E.th ibJi 12 4.



### ) ' )

### 9

H arri s on Grove Adm . CTA of Ephraim Anderson by dee d dated J une 25 , 19 1 1 , These tw o (2) tr acts w ere combined and s ubdivided usin g a di ffe re n t c o mmon bound ary in t o th e App leby Tr a ct and th e A.G. K erlin 'Iract as di s~ / ,j ~ 

### 2 , 3 6 . Celia Ander son ac qu ired title to the real est ate d e scri b ed 

### sup r a fro m (form erl y C e li a Anderson), Th e Garland deed called for the Ellio tt Fl eming he i rs as an a djoiner who is in the 

## JRF grantee c hain and Elij ah Bald wi n who is i n the JRM c h ai n . 

### (Pla tntiffe 'Exhibit 9), containing 180 acres, more or less, sold a s the land of C e lia S i pes fro m J ob L. Garland, High Sheriff of Fulton County (h ere in after "Garl an d De e d , ' ) d ee d , c o nt ai ning 140 acres, more or less, and a second de e d for an a djoinin g trac t o f land of Ow e n And erson (later th e Appleby Tra ct) on th e north. 

### Pla i nti ffs I 

### Exh i b it 3 4 . ,R e latin g to Plu m Hollo w Huntin g 

### Club . Inc: s Chain o f Title from Owe n An der son throu g h Jame s Kerlin 

### 35. O wen H. Anderson acquired title from his mother Ce lia Anderson b y call f o r an y adj oiner in D e fendants' chains of title. The d ee d does n ot call f or other l and s su b s e qu e nt d ee d in an unbroken chain of title (h ereinafter " A. G. Ke rlin C hai n") do e s not 

### (Plai ntiffs' Exhibit 34), date d May 2 9 , 191 7, calls for Elijah Bald win on th e east , bu t eac h 3 4 . The d e ed f

o r th e A.G . Kerlin Tr a ct (herein after " A.G . Ke rlin D e e d") th e J MF c hain of title (h ereinafter 

### "JMF chain"). 

### See Platnttffs I 

### Exh i b it 8. grantee s c h ai n of titl e (hereinafter "JRF grantee chain"), and als o calls for an adj o i n er In ch ain of title (h ereafter "Ap pleby Chain" ), calls for adjoiner found in th e J . R o nald Fraker 

### Exhib i t 8), date d Match 22, 1919 , and each subsequent d e ed th ereafter , in an unb roke n 3 3 . The d ee d for the Ap pl eby Tr act (h erein after "Ap pleby Tract " ) 

### (Pla in tiffs·· more o r l es s , as d isc us s ed t rfra . · 191 9 , co ntaining 180 ac res, more or l e ss. The Appleby Tract actuall y con t ain s 2 30 acres , • t 

## )10

containing 286 acres, more 01· less, and consi s ting of two ( 2 ) adjoin i ng p arcels, See Pla i ntiffs' Exhibit I J. Th e Grove deed called for T, B. Fleming heirs or devisees as adjoine rs to the north in the 

### JRF grantee chain and for E lijah B al dwin as ad j oiner on the east in the JRM chain. Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 11. 37, No deed of record was found into Ephraim And erson, but th e followin g rec i tals found in th e resp ec tive d e eds ref erence th e deed(s) fr o m J ames Kerlin to Ephraim Ande r son for the two ( 2) a djoi ni ng tract s in the Grove Deed.

a. The Anderson deed, id e ntified 

### as P lainti ff's Ex hi bi t N umb er I 0 , re cites, " bein g th e sam e land which was conv e yed by S amu e l Ke l so, E x ec ut or of J ohn P. B aker to J ames Kerlin by d e ed dated April 6 , AD . , 1869 and c o n veyed b y J ames Kerl in to Ephrai m Anderson and the said Anderson died seiz e d of the 

### sam e land after havi n g mad e hi s last wi1I an d testam ent." Plaintiffs' Exhibit Numb er 10 . .

b, Th e Appl eby Deed , labeled as Plainti ff' s E xhibit 8 , recites that it is i dentified a s Pl aintiffs E xhibit 8 , "part of the same land w h i ch James Kerlin di e d seized and afterwards becoming th e pro p erty of Celia Anderson an d later C e lia Sipes." Pla intiffs ' Exhi b it Number 8, p. 2 .

c. Th e A. G . Kerlin Deed , label e d a s Pl ai n tiffs E x hibit 3 4 , re c i te s th at it is "part of the s ame lan d which was conveyed by James Kerlin T o Ephrai m A n der son by de e d dated April · 6, 1869 and the said Ephraim Anderso n having di e d te s t ate th e s ame lands b ec am e v ested in C eli a Anderson." Plaintiffs' Exhibtt Nu m b e r 34. 3 8. C e lia Anderson ', who i s a re mote granter for all of P lu m Ho l lo w' s real estate, was the daughter of James Kerlin and th e mother of Owen Anderson . See Pla i n tiffs' Exhi b tt N

u m be r 9, p . 4 and Plai n tiffs' Exhibit Num ber 12, p. 3. 

### ) ,.1 1

bounds , an d quantity . The de s cription for th e Deed of 1 827 started w ith the north ern 42 . The Deed of l 8 27 contain s a d e sc rip tion using a djoiner s , me te s and Re l ati n g to What and Wh ere th e B o und ary of th e Deed of 1827 i s a M atter 

### o f Law M ary Trotter by Denni s O'Connor. pa ge 68-3. 

### Pla i n tiff's Exhibit 1 8. There i s no reco rd of any other conv eyan c e of l an ds of 28, 1827 (here i nafter "De e d of 1 8 2 7") as record ed i n th e Bedf o rd Cou n ty Deed B ook R , (Denn i s o f James O' Conn er and Dennis of Be rnard O' Conner), b y d ee d d ate d Decemb er Tr otte r tract to two ( 2 ) of his s ons, Bernard and James, i n tru s t for his two (2) grands o n s 41. Prior to hi s death , Denni s O ' Conn o r convey e d 3 1 5 ac res o f th e Mary Dublin Towship , Fulton Cou n ty. Penns yl vania. 

### Plaint iffs ' Exhi b it 1 9. h i s e s tate conv e yed al l hi s re m aini n g intere at i n those tw o tracts l ying 

### within w hat i s n o w e s t ate s urv e y e d in the nam e of John Trotter and that Purpart N o. 1 and Purp art N o . 3 in 40 . Dennis O' Conner had an unb ro ken c h ain o f titl e 

### bac k to 

### a p atente d tr ac t of. re al estate surve y e d in th e nam e of 

### Mary Tro tter an d to an a dj a cent pate nte d trac t o f real from th e JRM chain, as th e a d joiner to the e ast. gr ante e chain, as an a djoiner o n the north and for Mary Tro tter , now George Chestnut, time of his de ath. The O 'Conn o r p artition called for Thomas Stin s on> fro m th e JRF fr om him durin g hi s lifetime and th at there was no record 

### that he owned th e s e tr acts at the page 

### 53. Plaintiffs' Exhibtt Numb e r I 7, p. 

### 4. There 

### are n o re cord e d d ee d s for thes e tracts B e dford Co u nty , Pennsylvania, a s c o ntai n e d i n Be d ford County Orphan s Court Bo o k 8, Purpart No. 1 and Purpart N o. 3 in the p arti ti on of th e es tate of Dennis O 'Conner in 

### Rel ating to 

### P l um Hollow H un ting Club . Inc . ' 

### s C hai n of T itl e fro m Kerl in t o 

### M ary Trotte ~ · and John Trotter 39 . James Kerli n had an unb roken chain of title t o 

### re al e s tate designated a s I I' 

### }

### ~·

1 2 boundary ; then th e eastern bound ary , followed by the southern bou nd ary , and fi n all y we stern b ou nd ary . A p lo t of that d es cripti on d o es n o t cl o s e . Pla i n t iffs ' Exh i b it Nu mbe r 1 06 , p. 1. 43. Th e hab e ndu m c lau se in the D e ed of 18 2 7 rec i te s in ter ali a , "To hav e and t o ho l d th e s aid part o f 

### Mary T ro tter co nt ainin g three hundre d an d fifteen acres o f l an d . . .U Pla i ntiffs' E

xh i b i; ]06, p. 1 . Th e plo t in c lud e s only 194. 40 1 8 acre s , Thi s i s p art o f th e tract s i tuated on the eas t e rn si de o f Cl e ar Ri d g e, Dublin Tow ns h i p, Bedfor d C oun ty. 44. The d escri p tio n in the McDo w ell Mo rt ga ge , th e o l d es t reco rd i n JMF' s c h ain b ears d istin c t s imil ari tie s in it s course s and dist an ce s to th e De e d o f 18 2 7 fr om Denni s O 'C o nner, so that JMF's bound ary e n compa s s es th e portio n o f the D ee d o f 1 8 2 7 al on g i ts e a s tern bo u ndary w hich had c o nve y ed · a total of 315 acres o f th e Mary Tro tter trac t , l e ss the p o rti o ns in the no rth wes t co rn er wh ich w ere occupie d b y S imp so n C. C arm a ck , P laintifft ' E

xh i b it N um b er s 18, 75, 

### 11 6

. 45. T h e d esc ripti o n in th e D ee d o f 1827 re cites , " Beg innin g at a white o ak , th ence 

### b y land o f Elwin Fis h South Six ty d e g rees East thre e hundre d and si xteen p erc h es to a w hi te oak. " Plai ntiffs' Exhibit 18. T hi s len gth is th e sam e l e n gth as the E l wi n Fi s h p ate nt and rep re se nts th e total divis ion lin e b e twee n th e Mary Trotter Warran t an d th e E l win Fi s h W arr ant. Plai ntiffs' Exh i bit 

### 1 1 6, p . I. 46. The d e s c ripti o n o f 

### the D ee d of 1 82 7 goes outs id e o f th e e astern b o un dary o f the Mary Tro tter pate n t but d o es n o t end at th e l and of Rob ert Lodge whi c h i s th e pu rpo rte d o wn er o f th e junior pate nt to th e so uth o ftb e M ary Tro tter p atent. Thus , the e astern b o undary o f the Dee d of 18 2 7 run s th e e n tire l e ng th o f the e a stern bou n d ary o f th e Mary T r o tter patent. P la tnt iffs ' Exhibit 116 , 

### p. 2. . . 

### )

### 13 47, Th e northern b o und ary o f R o b ert L od ge ha s a bearing ofN 56 W, h ow e ver, th e d escription in th e Deed of 1 827 d oes no t c o n tain a b o und ary lin e w i th th is b earing , b ut i n ste a d cont ains as its n ex t co urs e, " No rth twe n ty fi ve and o ne hal f d egre e s East on e hun dred and thirty p erch e s to a Ch e stnu t O ak, then ce b y the re si due o f Lan d o f M ary Tro tter N orth fifty six de grees W e st s i x ty n i n e p erch e s to a w hite oak , , • . " 4 8. The n ext c o urs e is " N o rth twe n ty fiv e d egre es Eas t s i xteen perch es to a w hite o ak, thence b y l and o f William Justic e d e c ' d, .. . " 4 9 . T h e l as t three (3 ) cours e s in the D ee d o f 1827 m atc h three o f the co ur s es in th e Mary Tro tter s urvey call ing " al o n g W illi am J u s tice ." The b ou n dary li ne s th at cal l for Willi am Jus tic e d e c' d are N 6 4 W 3 6 p erc hes (5 94 f e et ) N 15 W 38 perc h es ( 627 fee t ). and N 8 E 110 perc h es (1 8 1 5 f e e t), P la in t iffs · Exh ibit Number 18. Relating to the ex tent of P lu m Hollow Hunting Club , Inc . ' s Chai n of T i tl e 5 0 . The dee d from An d erso n to App l eby (h ere in after "Appleby Deed") con tain s 'a des c ri p ti o n that inc l u d es m onuments , adjoiner , me te s and b ounds , an d qu an ti ty, See P lai nt {ffe' Exh i bi t 8, 1 05. Th i s . desc ripti o n en comp asses C l e ar-Ri d ge Road ,

. The plot of the d e sc ription in the d e e d, c al c ul ates a qu anti ty o f 2 30 . 0716 a cres as opp o sed to the qu an ti ty stated in th e dee d as 1 80 acres, mo re o r less . P lai n tiff s ' Exhtblt l 05, p. 4. Neither the mete s and bo unds given for the b oundary in common wi th the E lli ot F l e mi ng h ei r s, from JRF'8 c h ain o f title, n or th e metes and b ound s gi v e n fo r th e bo undary i n co mm o n with E lijah Baldwin , fr om JMF 's c h ain o f titl e match. 51. Th e recit al s i n eac h deed i n th e c hain of titl e s ubs e quen t to the Appleby Deed recite that e ac h granter c o nveye d the same l and as th e gr anter h ad acqu ire d . Platntifft ' Exh i bi t s J.:7 . 

### ) I 11. I

No . 3. 

### Plaintiffs' Exhibit 17, p. 4. 

## . 

# . 57. Purpart No. I contains the entire residue of the Mary Trotter p~tent, except for a small triangle of uncertain and undefined size at the north eastern comer of Pnrpart 

### 105,p.12. controlling instead of the lines of the Mary Trotter patent. 

### Plaintiffe' Exhibits 17, p. 

### 4, 56. The partition survey adopted the lines of 

### the Thomas Stinson patent 

### as the John Trotter patent. boundary of the Mary Trotter patent by 40 perches and is outside the eastern boundary of the east-west boundary line on the eastern boundary ofthe partition breaches the southern and the partition of his real estate in his Estate. 

### Plaintiffs 'Exhibit 17, p. 4. On its face, 55. The partition survey does not accurately depict the boundaries of the ) residue of the 

### Mary Trotter patent as owned by Dennis O'Conner at the time of his death 

### Plaintiffs' Exhibit 17, p. 4.

14 O'Connor (elder) owned in what is now Dublin Township, Fulton County, Pennsylvania. 54. Purpart No. 1 and Purpart No. 3 comprise all the land that Dennis 

### Plaintiffs' Exhibit 17, p . 

### 4. well as all real estate he still owned from the John Trotter patent, 

### as part of his estate. the real estate he still owned from the Mary Trotter patent (hereinafter the "Residue") as · 53. At the time of Dennis O'Connor's death, the Orphan's Court portioned all northern portion of PurpartNo. 3 from the Estate of Dennis O'Connor (elder) through the Appleby chain .' 

### Plain tiffs' 

### Exhibit 105, p. 

### 11. 52, Plum H ollow's deed description encompasses all of Purpart No. 1 and the1 5 58. Th e Deed of 1865, identified as Plain t iffs' Exhib it 58, fro m JRF's c hain of title call s for J ames Kerl i n as at least a southern adjoiner and the deed of 186 8 from Foster M. B ergstres s er to Elijah Baldwin Jr . in th e JMF chain of title calls for J am es Kerlin as an adjoin er on its we s tern boundary establishing the relative histori c al boundary position of Plum Hollow as su c cessor to James Kerlin. 59. The most re cent survey for the real estate to which Plum H ollow has record title, the su rv e y of 1969 by Albert Larserr' (hereinafter "Survey of 1969") shows JRF's g ranter, JMF,s pred e cessor in title, and Henry's predecessor in title a s adjoin ers, but also locate s part of Plum Hollow's southern and eastern boundary with its c orner at a stone pile in land outside the boundaries of both the Mary Tro tte r p ate n t and J ohn Trotter patent to which Plum Hollow has no known evid e nce of title. Plai ntiffs' Exhibi t s 121, 125, 130. 60. The location of Plu m H ollow' s real estate throu g h the Ap p l eby De e d is fix e d by th e lo cation of th e Cle ar Ridge Ro a d on th e w e st, re al est ate o f Plum H o llow through B arnh art a s w e all Dale Henry on th e south, the c ommo n b o undary o f th e Mary Tro tter pate nt and th e Thomas Stinson pate nt on th e north (as arti cu lated by the Deed of 186 . 5), and the bound ary establish e d by th e D e ed o f 1827 on the e a st and n ortheas t , 6 I. The ac tual eas tern b o und ary i s d ependent upon the l o c ation of th e western bo u ndary o f JMF . Rel ating to the a crea g e o:ym e d 

### by: Plum Hollow Hunting Club1 Inc., s fro m 

### Mary Trotter 6 2 . Th e southw e stern c orner o f the Mary Trotter patent , as defined by the p l o t is bo u nded o n th e north b y land s of JRF and his grantees as de fi n e d by the D e ed of 1865, o n th e e ast by a line extending fro m th e 16 p erch li ne on th e e dg e o f the H om a dis ~c e 3 The survey I s i d e nti tle d as P lai n tiffs Nu mber 105, p. 2 . • Jl

### 16

of 

### 16 8 8 fe et , on a b e aring of S011th 25 

### Y2 degl' e es W e st; and then on th e south by the south ern bound ary o f the M ary Trotter patent a di st an ce of 2951 fe e t and contains 

### 4 9 . 9414 ac re s . Thi s l and is loc ated within Plum Holl o w's b o undary as part of th e Residu e . 63. At th e time of hi s de ath, Denn i s O'Conner (eld er ) of B e dford C o unty. owned 152 ac res mo re or les s i n th e s outhwestern corner of Mary Tro tte r , bein g the residue after the conv e yance in the Deed of 

### 1 827. Plai nt iffs' Exhibit 18. 64. The partition in the Estate of Dennis O'C o nnor (elder) o f Bedford County failed to ac c ount fol' 01 · adequ ately d esc ribe th e residue he owned with i n th e Mary Tr o tter patent b y mete s and bound s . 

### Pla intiffs' Exhibit 17. p. 

### 4 . Relatill_g t o Douglas Henry' s Title 65. The re c ord title for Douglas Henry (herei nafter " Henry " ) Isfor a parc e l o f land (he re in after " He nry Parcel") first described in a d ee d from Collins M . Shade and Julia A. Shad e , his wife, dated November 

### 13, 1970, an d was part of a l arg er tra c t of land (hereinafter "Shade Tract"). Plaint(fls 'Exhibit 44. 66. The d escription for the Shade Tr act can be tr aced through L avada Kerlin to a deed (hereinafter "Myers Deed"), d ated October 

### 2, 1903, from Geor ge 

## . w. Myers and Jennie Myers , his wife, to A.G. Kerlin. 

### Plainttffs' Exhibit 48. 67, The My ers Deed reci tes , "[cjontaining twenty nine acre s an d seventy three perches ( 29 A 73 P) and allowances. Th is being a partof a tract of l and conveyed by deed to B enjamin F. My er s and Barbar a Myers by Mary A. Carmack the thirteenth d ay of Dec AD 

### 1871 and properly acknowl e dged b e fore James F ield s , a Justic e of the Peace and con v eyed to Geor g e W. Myers party hereto by the last wil1 and tes tam en t of his 

### )17

grantees' chain of title, but does not call for owners of the Appleby Tract 

### as an adjoiner 72. The Survey of 1965) calls for "Fleming Land), which is in the JRF Myers Deed. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 117, p. 2. 1965. The courses and distances 

### in this survey do not match the legal description of the unrecorded survey by Albert M. Larsen (hereinafter "Survey of 1965 1 ') on November 2, 71. The Shade Tract was subdivided into two adjoining parcels based on an Carmack as an adjoiner, known as S.B. Carmack, the southern boundary 

### oftpJ~ tract would lie along either the Fleming Tract, as defined in paragraph 72 below, or the Appleby Tract. The Deed of 1865 in the JRF grantee chainthrough Fleming specifically calls-for Simpson B. 70. AB part of the real estate formerly occupied by Simpson B. Carmack, also B. Carmack also known as S.B. Carmack. Platnttffs' Exhibit 50.

Relating 

### to the Extent of Dou g las Hew.'s Title 69. The Mary A. Carmack listed in Paragraph 65 was the widow of Simpson include the Buildings [sic] on my farm." 

### -Plaintiffi:' &htbit 49. Thom a s 

### B. Fleming and running back to the line between me and Elijah Baldwin so as to land off of the South end of my farm commencing at a point on the line between me and inter alia, "[fjirst I bequeath to my son George W. Myers Twenty-nine and 1/3 acres of



## . . 

### will of Barbara J. Myers, as found in Fulton County Will Book 2, page 58 that recites 68. The original description of the Myers Tract is established in the aforesaid wife as shown by this deed." Plaintiffs' Exhibit 48, McConnellsburg Pa. in the deed book then from George W. Myers.and Jennie Myers 

### his mother Mrs. Barbara 

### J. Myers by deed dated May,25, A.D. 1880 and recorded in • to

### 18

two and three hundred acre s b e the same more or l e ss ex ceptin g th e trac t o r part of a tract Mort g ag e " ) contains a mete s and bounds . d es cription and re cites , "c o n tainin g b etw e e n fro m J o hn S. M c Dowell to John James, dated October 2, 1865 (h erei nafter " McDowell 77. . The earliest rec o rd o f o wnership o f th e JM F Chain, nam e ly the m o rtg ag e 

### P laint{ffe 'E

xhihtt 12 0, p. 3 . in c orrectly o n theplot as northea s t) corner of Mary Trotter th at c o ntains 53 . 4468 acre s . 76, The description in the Baldwin Deed excluded th e northw es t (lab e l e d . Exhibit 117, and the rest was o wned by Simps o n B . Carmac k , als o kn own a s S . B . o w ne d 11.6057 (11.60) acre s as calculated in th e pl o t of his d ee d , id e ntifi e d as 

### Pla t n t J.jfs' contained 53.4468 ( 5 3.45) ac res. 

### P laintfffe' Exhibit Numb e r 1 20, p . 3 . Jo hn H o lland

The northw es t com er, label e d in c orrectly a s n orth e ast , of Mary Tr otter 

### 75. i s now incl u ded in l an d s of JMF a s the last of the four chain s id e ntifi e d in Paragraph 9 3 . which is now owned by Lonnie D. Henry. Th e parcel south o f th e ro ad w as retained and parcel north of the Plum Hollow Road, w hi ch was fi rst c o n v eyed to Ang el o K ale yi as the Plum Holi o w R o ad as the common b o undary . By a re gu l ar ch ain o f co nv eyan ce s, th e 74 . Cecil Fraker subsequ e ntly subdivided his parc el into two parcel s and u s ed Cecil Fraker dated Nov e mber 13, 1965. P laintiffs' Exhibit Num b er 117, p, 2. o f land (h ereinafter " Ce c il Fr aker P arcel") as shown on the Surv ey of 1965, by deed to 73 . Collins M. Shad e and Julia A. Shad e , his wi fe , c o nv e yed asp ec iflc parcel performed or supervised both surveys. Shade as an adjoiner of the Appl eby Tract. The same surv e y o r, Alb ert L arse n P . E. , of Shade. The Survey o f 1969, identified as Plai n tiffs' Exhib i t N u mber J OS , p, 2, shows \ j ' j

) 

### )1 9



### P la in t iffs ' Exhi b it N

u m be r 52. Fl emin g, d eceased, was sol d at pu b li c s al e by her estate (h erei n after " F l eming Tract" ). mad e in 197 6 (herei nafter " Survey o f 1 97 6 ") after th e real p ro perty of Ze lp ha G . he later co nve y ed to his grantees , i s first des c rib e d as a res ul t o f an unre c orded surv ey for whi c h J. Ronal d Fraker (h ere in after, ~ J RF' ')' h e ld re c o rd title , an d sub s eque n tly w hich 8 2 . T h e d e sc ri p tio n of the re al estate, an d th e p lot th e reo f 

### with adjoiners li sted ,

Re lati n g to J. R o nald Fraker an d hi s Gran te e s' Titl e O 'C o nnor ' s partiti o ned re al e s tate and the M ary Trotter pate n t b o undary confi rme d b y the D e e d o f I 865 w hich conveye d th e l ands of Tho mas S tin son , Henry owns al l land s n o t o wned by Plum Ho llow . 8 1. To the exte nt that th e there is a gap b etween th e lands of the Denn i s 80. Th e call i n M ary Tro tter is for 3 4 p erc hes ; th e call of Thom a s S ti nson is fo r .4 1 pe rches and Larse n ex te nds the c all of Sh a de to 60 p erc h es . an d c anno t be d efine d through th e existin g d e s c riptio ns, mo nume n ts o r a dj o in ers . 79 Th e pre cis e bo un d ary b e tw e en Plum H oll ow and Henry h as nev er b een d es c ri pti on. c o rn er , givi n g C armac k and his gr antees ap pr ox im ate l y 103.45 acres in the Northwes t c orner o f M ary Tro tter o u ts id e the s cope of 

### th e Mc llo w el l Mortg a g e me tes 

### and b o und s is i n a dd itio n to th e real e s t ate alre ady p ossess e d b y S . B. C arm ack i n the N orthw est 7 8. Th e fifty ( 5 0) a cre re servati o n to Si mps o n B . Carmack , as d enote d 

### supra; c o nv ey ed by Ge o. Ch e stnut & w ife to 

### Thos, H u st ~(~~-;

- i n the possess i o n o f S imp so n B . Carm ak c ontainin g ab ou t fifty a cres , " 

### P lain tiffs ' Bxhibt: Number 75. I



### ) 

## ) t , ,

### 20 83. AU conveyances with the Zelpha G . Flemin g chain of title back to the deed from Robert 

### J. Fleming, Executor of Thomas E. Fleming, d ated January 13 , 1912, recite that they were conveying the same tract of land as the pri o r deed and used a . descripti o n by a djoiner s only , and called the tract the "o ld mansion farm,'. P lai n tifft' &h i bft Number

s 52~55 . 8 4. Th o mas E. Fleming a cquired his title by will o f T ho mas W e lker, also known as Thomas Walker as found in Fulton County Will B o o k 1 , pa ge 457 an d re ci te s inter alia , "Item i. Bequeath unto my beloved friend Thoma s E . Fl e min g th e man s ion property that I now live on to have and bold it and to be his own pro perty." P lai ntiffs' Exhibit 56. 85. By d ee d dated December 16, 186 5 , a~ found i n Fulto n Coun ty D e ed B o o k 4, pa ge 

### 506 (h ere in after " Deed of 1865"), Ep hr aim R am se y c on v eye d all th at tra ct o r p arc el o f l an d s i tu ate in Dublin To w ns h ip, C o unty of Fu lto n , P e n ns y lvan i a to Th omas W alker. A p l ot of th e De e d of 1865 with th e d es i g nated a dj o in er s re prese nt s the s hap e/confi gu r ation o f the des cri ption in th e de e d. Pla i n tt ffs ' Exh i b i; 5 8. 86 . Ep hr aim R ams e y obtaine d his tract from the real estate p atente d in the nam e of Thom a s Stins o n. Th e warr ant issue d to Th o mas Stins o n on Septe mber 1 2 , 18 3 9 w a s for 1 5 5 a cres o f land a cljoining l and s of 

### John H o lland o n th e N o rth, D enn is O'C onno r Jr, on th e we s t, Dennis O'C onno r Sr . on th e South, and th e h e irs of P atri c k Co ulter on the Eas t in Dubl in Towns hip, B edford County . Pl aintif fs E x hibit Number 66

. T he surv e y fo r the " Tho m a s Sti nso n w arr an t" w a s co mplete d b y Mich ae l R eed, D ep uty Surve y or, B e d fo rd C o unty o n N o vemb er 21 & 2 2 , 1 8 39 . Th e D raft of Su rvey appears in th e Pennsylvani a St ate Archives , C o pi e d 

### Survey B ook C20 ~ . p a g e 22 6 a s containin g 1 68 

## )

)

### 21 91 . The d es crip ti o n in th e De e d of 18 65, was mad e m o re than 7 0 Y e EU's after the Mary T ro tter surve y an d Its e astern b ound ary c on forms to th e w e stern bo und ary of 

### Mary n atter aro und the H om w i th the ex cepti on of a m o nument b ein g a whi te oak ac re s and 138 perc he s with p erce n t allow an ce for ro ad s . 

### Plai ntiffs' Exhi bit 65. T ho

" Tho ma s Stin s on Wan·ant' 'w as p atented by Th o m as Stins o n o n January 1 3 , 184 5 . A c o py of the patent appe ar s in P e nnsylvania State Archives Pate nt B o o k H 45 , pa g e 285. 

### Plai n tiffs I 

### Exh ibit 64 .

Relating to th e e xte nt o fJ. Ronald Fr aker 's 

### Ti tl e 87. Th e Su rv e y of 1 9 7 6 upon which the bo un dary c laime d by J RF an d his gr an tee s is b as ed d o e s not use the monumen t s from th e Surv ey of 1 969 w hic h i s us e d to de scribe th e real e st ate of Plum Hollow. Like w is e , Plum Hollo w 's d ee d d es cripti ons h av e nev er u s ed the monu m ent s fro m th e Survey 1 9 76. Th e Su rvey of 197 6 do es not conf o rm to th e des c rip tion of the re al est ate s et forth in th e D ee d o f 

### 186.5 . 8 8. Th e a d

jo in ers in the F l emi ng Deed are c o nsi stent 

### with the actu al adjoin ers . A plot of th e S u rv e yof 1 97 6 w i th the d es ignated adjoin ers repre se n ts th e s hape/con figuration o f the d e scrip tio n fo r th e survey , 

### P lalnt ifft I 

### E xhibit 10 8 . 89. D efe nd ants f

ail ed to s h o w how the rec o rd ti tl e he ld b y Ze lp ha G, Fl emi ng at the tim e of 

### h er d eath 

### pro duc e d th e d es cription establish ed by the S urv e y o f 1 97 6. 

### 9 0. Th e c o mm o n sou rc e o f ti tle b e twe en JRF grantees an d Plain ti ffs is the Comm o nw e al th of Pennsylvani a and the titl e fo r th e JRF gr an tees can b e trace d thro u g h th e Tho mas 

### Stins on patent and Pl ai n tiffs titl e can be tra ce d through th e Mary Trotter

· patent. 

# . ,.



### )2 2

to C ec il Fr aker 

### b y D e e d date d Nov e mber 13, I 9 65, re c ord e d i n Fult on Co un ty D eed Bein g a p orti o n of th e l an d s con v ey ed by Collins M. Shad e and J uli a A. Sha de , hi s wi f e, r e cord ed i n Fulton County D e e d B oo k 8 9, p a g e 2 1 8 ( h ere inafter "Sco ut s Dee d " ) ; and S couts of Am eri c a to C ecil F . Fraker and Ke nne th L . Fr aker by D eed d ate d 1 9 78, "S te ve ns D e ed") ; B e ing all th e s am e land s co n vey e d by M as o n-Dix o n Co unci l , Inc ., Bo y T l'ac t #l i n th e D ee d fr om L ois S te ven s , wi d ow , to Kenneth L. Fr aker and Ce cil F . Fr aker date d J u n e 2 8, 197.5, re corded in Fu l to n C oun ty D e ed B o ok 8 1, pa ge 384 (h ere in after Ful to n C o unty De e d B oo k 6 4, p ag e 1 8 9 (herei n after " Baldwin D e e d"); B ei n g a p ortion of



# . . wif e , to Cec il F . Fr aker and Kenn eth L. Fraker date d S eptemb er 12 , I 9 5 7 , r e c o rd e d in po rti on of Tra ct # 1 in th e D ee d fr om J ohn J ere Bald w i n an d Mar g aret L . Bald win, h i s from fou r ( 4) diff

erent ch ai n s of title m o re ex plici tly re c i ted in the d e e d a s " B e i n g a 9 4 . The d e ed w ith th e description take n fro m the S urv ey o f 19 84 (here inafter '~JMF D ee d"), l abel e d as Pla i n tifft' E xhibi t 6 7 , repre s e nts that the s ourc e o f ti tl e co mes jointly owned prop erty. Plat n tlffs 'E xhibit 6 7 . (here inafter "Surve y of 1984") when Kenneth L. Fr aker and C e cil F . Fr aker di vi ded their (h erei n after "JMF") i s fir s t describ e d a s a re s ult of an unrecord e d surv e y m ad e in 19 8 4 9 3 . Th e record titl e for Janet M . Fraker, also known as Janet L. Fraker

Re l atin g to Janet M . Fr aker's Title to J RF or his grante e s to l and s that co m e fr om th e pate nt of Mary Trotter . 9 2. Th ere is no record or document ary evi de nce o f re c o rd th at shows 

# any titl e 1 3 3. i ns tead of a dogwo o d and a b earin g of S 6 4 E inste ad o f S 4 6 E. P lairu t ffs ' E xhibits ·1 2 7 ,23 4 Id en tifi e d as Pla in,t(fft ' Exh i bit 7 5 containin g abo u t fifty a c re s. T h e wh o l e havi ng b ee n co nv ey ed b y Geo . C h e s tnut & 

### wife Geo. C h estnut & 

### wife t o Th o s. Hu sto n, now i n th e p osse s sio n o f S i mps o n B. C arm ack hundre d acres be [

sic 

### J same mo re o r J es s ex cep tin g th e tr a c t o r p art o f a tr act c o n v e yed by . . 1 8 65 4 (h ere m after= M c lf

owe ll Mortga ge " ) reci tes > " c o n tain i ng b etw e e n two an d three Mo rtga g e as se t forth su p r a . 

### Se e P lr.,intiffi ' Exhi b i ts 68-7 4 . 9 8 . A mort g a g e fr om J ohn S. McDo w ell to 

### John J ames , d ated Octo b er 2 , remo te granter of Henry , i s referred t o as Simp s on B . C armac k in th e M c D o we ll t o Thoma s H uston, n ow occup i ed b y S. B . C armac k (2 tracts ). " S. B. C armack, w h o is th e trac t, a tr a ct of fifty acre s more o r le ss, w hi ch was co n v e y e d by G eo . C he s tn ut and wife recite s , " c o ntaini n g b etw e e n tw o and three hundred- ac res , Th ere i s 

### re serv e d fro m th i s April 

### 2~ 1 8 66. 

### See Platntiffi ' Exh i b i t 

### 7 4 . Th e deed fro m M cDo w e ll 

### to Berk stre s s er of con v e yan c e s b ac k to the d ee d from J ohn S . Mc D o w ell t o F . M . B erkstre s s er d ate d 97. J M F ' s record titl e fo r th e B al d w i n D e e d c an b e tr ac e d b y a re g ul ar c h ain th i s litig ati on i s the Bald w in D e ed . 

### Platntijfs 'Exhibit 

### Nu m b e r 68. liti gatio n . Likewi s e , the tr ac t o f l an d fr om S had is n ot aff e cted b y thi s l iti g ation, altho u gh it do es li e with in th e boun ds of the Mary Tro tter p ate nt. Th e o n ly title impacte d thro u gh Sco u ts D eed in c lud e l and s wi thin th e 

### Mary Tro tter s urv ey, and are not affec ted 

### by thi s 9 6 . Ne ith er th e c h ai n o f ti tl e fo r th e S tev e n s D e ed n or the chai n of titl e fo r the b y the Survey of 1 984 , JMF De ed e xpl ai n ed in the pre c ee din g p aragr ap h, p roduced th e descriptio n estab lis h ed. 95. De fen d an t JMF did n o t s h o w ho w the fo ur (4 ) ch ai n s o f titl e cited i n th e H e nry's c hain. B ook 71 , page 5 2 ." Th e l as t de e d l is te d is ac c o un te d for i n Para grap h 72 ab o ve a s p art of ' I2 4 5 I d enti fie d as Pla

/ nt(ffe ' Exhib i t 1 8 . 6 Ide nti fl ed as Plaln t!ffe ' E

xh i b it I 1 6, p. S. Road a s a comm o n b o un dary. P lai n tiffs ' E xhibit 1 1 6 , p . S. JMF D e ed 2 descri b e s a tr a c t o f l and adj acent to the J MP D eed wi th th e Pl u m Holl o w Bal d win, h i s wif

e , to Cecil F . Fr aker an d Ke nn thL . Fraker ." Plain t iffs' E xhi bit 68. The "Be in g a portion o f

Tract#l in th e Deed fro m Jo hn J ere B ald w in an d M argare t L . 1 01. Th e d eed fro m Kenn e th L. Fraker-an d Dap hne Frake r , hu sband an d wif e, and C ecil F. Fraker and JMF, hus band and wif e to Ce cil F . Fr aker ( now decea s ed) an d J M F, husband and wife , d ate d September 4 , 1 9 84 6 (h ereinafter 'fJMF D eed 2 ' ') recite s ,

Relatin g 

### to the ex te n t o f Janet M. Fr aker's TitJ e · H oll o w. 1 0 0 . D e nn is O'Co nn er is th e 

### co mm on s o urce of ti tl e o f JM F a s well 

### as P l u m 3 1 5 a cres o f th e M ary Trotter tract . P lai nttffs' Exhibit 11 6 , p. 1 0. dist an ce s to th e De e d of 1 8 27 from D e nn i s O' Conn er , so that this title e n c o mpa sses th e po rti o n o f'the D ee d o f 18 2 7 5 alon g its e a stern boundary whi c h had c on vey ed a to t al of the d e s c ri p ti o n in th e Mc D o w e ll M o rtga g e b ear s strikin g similariti es in 

### its c~ u rses an d 99 , Th ere is no record e v id e n c e s h owi n g any ti tl e in to G eo rg e C hes tnu t , bu t .Exh ib it 75. the de e d f rom C he stnut t o Cessna, o r a d e ed fro m O 'C o nner to C h es tnu t. P la i n t iffs' There i s n o reco rdof'th e d ee d from Jam e s to McD o w e ll, the deed fro m C e ss n a to Jame s, t o th e within n ame d m ortg ag o r, and b e in g p art o f a surve y in th e nam e o f M ary Trotter ." S e p te mb er 18 5 9, co nv e y e d the same to Jo hn Jam e s , wh o thi s d ay hath c o nv ey ed the sam e to J o hn Ce s sn a Esq. by deed date d 13th S ept. 18 5 9 , w h o by dee d d ated th e 1 9 t h o f

### 2 5 R e l atin g to A dv erse P o ssession o f 

### JM F ..,. .,. titl e fro m J o hn Jere Baldwin o r his pred e c esso rs, and furth er, li ke th e rec o rd bo und ary of Pl um H ollow, en croac hes i nto land o u tsi de the s outhern b o und ary of th e M ary Tr otter p atent wi th o u t any evi d e n ce o f a gran t fro m an y o ne oth er th an J ohn J ere B ald wi n . 1 0 5 . N otwithstandin g any contrary rec o rd bound ary, the ac tual le g al b o un dary of JMF on th e wes t a s s h own i n the 

### JMF D ee d 2 is limited to th e bou n dary of the Deed of 1827, le ss that l an d in the n o rth w est porti o n o f the Deed (?f 1 8 2 7 o f app ro xi m atel y 10 3 ac res that be c ame posses s e d and l ater owned by Simp son B. C armack a s set fo rth s upra . 106. Th e n o rthwe st b o un d ary o f the Bald win D e e d, after ac c oun ti ng fo r the fifty (5 0) acre e x ception in fav or o f S . B. Carmack, n o rth of th e P lu m Ho ll o w R o ad , is fi x e d by the curre n t b o un dary betw e en Kare n S. Gri s sin g e r , et al. and Lo nni e D . Henry . 107 . JMF o wn e d n o t more than appro xi mate ly 212 ac re s in the ' eas tern porti o n of th e Mary Tr otter p aten t , which is part o f the trac t acqui red in the B ald win D e ed. 

### P lcrint iffs' Exhi bit 68. 1 0 2 . Th e de scription s in the McD o w e ll Mort ga ge and th e Bal dwin De e d are ide ntical after adj u s tin g for di fferent u ni ts o f measure m ent (i.e. ro ds versus perch es ) an d the call fo r a red oak instead o f a ro ck oak. I 03. Th e d esc ri p tion · i n th e Bald w in Dee d ch ain remai n fix ed fo r mo re th an n in e ty ye ars, be fo re th e S urv e y of 198 4 distorte d the c o n fig uration p roduce d b y the d escri p tio n an d s ub st antially i ncrea s ed the numb er o f acres wi tho ut re s o l v i ng th e i s su e s ass o ciated w i th th e amb i gui ti es foun d in the Deed o f 1 82 7. 10 4 . Th e Surv ey o f 1 984 , which est ab lishes JM F ' s rec o rd b o undary, b ears no semb lance to the l e g al d e s cri pti on s et forth i n the d e eds o f c o nv eyance in J MF 's c hai n of I '

)I I

26 -Coneluslons of Law and Diseussion Historical Perspectives The matter before the Court is a boundary dispute and the Court 

### will use boundary dispute principles 

### to resolve this 

### case. See Hermansen, Knud E verett, Boundary Retracement Principles 

### and Procedures for Pennsylvania, (1986) 7, p. 5~2 ("Fl'om the surveyor's viewpoint, evidence has two purposes: (1) to help determine the position of the boundary and (2) to explain any ambiguity in the boundary location information or field data. The focus of all the information is to determine the location of the original boundary.") The Plaintiffs concisely s tate the nature of this case when they. write, ''this case involves the proper legal title [ of] boundaries befuddled by more than a 1 All books cited in the opinion were o btained from the Widener University Schoo! of Law library system. 108. There is 110 residence on the real estate own e d or cl aimed by JMF which w a s acquired by her predeces s ors in the Baldwin Deed. There is no evidence that a resid e nce e ver 

### existedon this tract of 

### real est ate. 109. The real estate owned 

### or claimed by 

# J1'4F which was acquired by her predecessors in the Baldwin Deed is not and has never been fenced. 110. The real estate owned or claime d by JMF which was acquired by her predecessors in the Baldwin Deed is woodlands. I 11. Until the genesis of this a ction, there is no evidence of a boundary dispute between JMF or her precessors and Plum Hollow or its predecessors along the common boundary, 112. The common source of title among JMF (Deed of I 827) , Plum Hollow (Estate of'Dennis O''Conner, the elder), and Henry (Deed of 1827).is Dennis O'Conner (the e lder). 

### )27

c e ntu ry of erro rs in d e scription and survey . ' 1 

### P laintiffs' Proposed Fin di ng of F ac t and Conclusi o ns of

Law, p. 4 2 . Defendant J. R. Fr aker fr am es the cas e a s s impl y " that h e and his succ es sors in title (Dillman , Ramsey, and Mill er) are b o na fi de purch a ser s w h o p aid a v aluabl e co nsid erati o n for the g round s pec i fically d es cribed (by b earing s, di s t an ces , m o numents and surv eys ) with in th e ir title d e eds of record, after title s e arch es c o nduc ted b y atto rne ys , and i n relianc e upon the property descripti o ns specifical l y set fo rth withi n the Ful t on County de ed records for s om e sixty 

### (60) y e ars and mo re." 

### J.R. Fr aker 's Propos e d Ftndt

n g s of Pact and 

### Conclusions of Law, p. 3. Prior to g e ttin g into th e s p ecifi c s of the c~s e, it ls imp o rtant 

### to under s tand the e vo lution of b o undary dispute l aw fro m the beginning. On Marc h 4 , 1681 , Willi am P enn wa s granted 4 7 , 000,000 acres b y Kin g Charl es II in s ati s fa ctio n a I 6 , 000 p oun d deb t ow e d to Penn' s father , Admiral Penn. Nich o lson, Vincent D . , A Treatise on the 

### Law Relatin g to Re al Est ate in Penns y lvania (1929), p. 4 . Follo w ing the gran t , P e nn b e gan to se ll th e land 

### to s ettlers . Herman se n, p. 3

- 1 . To e ffectu ate th e lan d tr ans fers , Penn e stabli s hed the Land Office. Id . U n der th e D i v es tin g A ct o f 177 9 titl e to th e 47,000,00 0 ac res w as tr ansferre d from William P e nn' s h e irs to the Commonw e alth of Penn s yl v ani a in ex chan ge for 1 30 , 000 po un d s . Nichol s o n , p. 5, 10 ; Se e al s o H erm ans e n , p . 3 M2. The D i v es ting A c t was pas s ed bec ause following the Revolutionary War Hit was con s id e re d incomp ati b l e wi th th e de m ocr atic in s titu ti ons o f th e n e w c o untry for such va s t real estate h o ldin gs to remain i n th e Penn famil y. " Nich o ls o n, p . 10 . On April 3rdi 17 9 2, the l e gislature passed an Act ('~ 1792 Ac t " ) whic h sold tho s e rem ainin g l an ds owned b y th e Comm onweal th o f Penns y lvania . Commonwe al th v . 

### )28 In Coxe, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained the process of the' 

### 1792 Act. First the land was surveyed, and then) in exchange for paying money to the Commonwealth 

### and the submission of 

### an appropriate survey, a land purchaser was issued a warrant by the land office. Id. at 199, 196, The warrant was considered to be 

### a "sales agreement between the proprietors or the Commonwealth on one hand and the citizen (applicant) on the other. It also served as an order or authorization for the deputy surveyor to perform a survey on behalf of the applicant (warrantee)." Hermansen, 3w9 ( citing Tryon v. M u n s on, 77 Pa. 250 (1874)). At the county level, a "public and official record" was made of all of the submitted surveys. Reilly v. Mountain Coal Co., 54 A. 29, 30 (Pa. 1903). The role of the land office was merely to act as the local agent for the Commonwealth because the land was owned by the Commonwealth. Kelly v, Graham, 9 Watts 116, 117 (Pa. I 839) ('1'he officers of the land office are not the proprietors of the lands granted by them, that they can grant them without regard to quantity or price. The lands belong to the state; and the land officers act only as the agents of the state in disposing of them; and are limited in Coxe, 4 U.S. 170 (Pa. 1800). The purpose of the 1792 Act was to encourage settlement of rural areas and to fend off hostilities from Native American tribes who, being a threat to the land owners, were also deemed a threat to the development and cultivation of rural lands. Coxe, 4 U.S. at 196, 199. To accomplish this purpose, the proceeds from the wan-ant were used to pay for the militaryto fend off the Native Americans. ~ at 19~. The Act further provided that the land purchaser, with limited exceptions, was required to make improvement to the land within two (2) years from the date of the warrant. Id. at 196.

### 29

held th at if the paten t contain s land not em braced by the surv e y , the paten t mus t be Comm o nwealth ha d the authority t o ord er a re su rv ey of th e warrant, 

### 14:. C ase law hes Howeve r , i f the disparity between the survey and the w arr ant wa s s o gre at , th e o f land up on the issuan ce o f th e p atent. H agerty v, Mathers , 3 1 P a. 3 48 , 355 {1 858 ) , than what was c alled for in the warrant, the Commonwealth wa s paid th e ex ces s am o unt If th e· su rv e y , fo l l o win g the di s t ances an d call s , was fou nd to co n tai n more land [t]h e patent purport s to c onv e y the interests of th e Comm o n w e al th or th e proprietor s ( g ranters) to th e ap p lican t or his ven de e. Th e p ate nt i s e v i denc e 

### to al l oth er applican ts that the land is n o longer va c ant and no l o ng er p art of the pu b lic domain . To rec e ive a patent, an applicant was judged by the Co mm onw eal th to hav e complied with all th e re quirem e nts 

### for appropri ati ng v a can t l an d. Th e p ate n t 

### stands as a re solution regardin g the pre vio us proc e edin g s and 

### a dis so Iuti o n of the Commonw ealth ' s interest in th e land describ e d by th e p atent. It bars th e Comm o nwealth from interv e nin g into future pr o ce e di n gs questi onin g th e title . As such , it oper ate s 

### as a qui tc laim d e e d . H erm ans en, 3-15, 3~17 . 495, 495 (P a. 1 88 9 ) . Stated anoth er w ay, whos e tights, if an y , accrued a-ft ~ r the d ate of the p atent , " Ol ewin e v , M essmo r~ , 18 A. o f titl e , e s peci ally ag ainst o n e who reli es on p o ss ession alon e , w ho s ho w s n o titl e > an d F o ll owin g the warr ant, a p atent was issued by ~ e G overn or o f the <;ommonweal th. C oxe, 

### 4 U . S. at 

### 196. The patent s erv e d a s prt mafac l e evi d e nc e o f title to th e patent hold er an d " the patent convey s th e full legal titl e of th e st ate , an d is ev id e nce B e nefit of O'Reill }'. , 5 A.3d 24 6 , 257 (Pa. 2010). wh at is c ommonly re ferred to as th e "incorporeal burden," 

### In re O pen ing Pri v ate Rd 

### for purchaser ob tained vi a th e s urvey and w arrant proc es s, all p ro p erty owners were gi ve n 

### an addi tional six perc e nt ( 6%) of land fre e of charge to allow fo r th e c o nstruction of ro a ds 

### in ,,,_. th e ir action by th e authority grante d t o th e m in this beh alf . ") , In addi tion to the land a 

## ••

) )30 8 Hereinafter "N.T. May 20, 2011 ". 

### 20 

### I1, p. 

### 14. Likewi s e, Herm ansen notes , required to move the chain, re-read the compass and then extend the line. N.T. May 20, have a long enough chain to reach end to end so the surveyor and his crew would be 3-6, T imothy Witter, who testified on behalf of the Plaintiffs, testified that the surveying methods used in the 18 1 h century had inherent problems because if the surveyor had metal in his pockets or there was metal in the ground this could affect the reading of the compass. Notes of Testimony, May 20, 2011 8 , p. 12. Frequently the surveyor did not surveyors were hampered by "Indian harassment and battles with nature." Hermansen, p. progress on all of the survey requests. Hermansen, p , 

### 3-5. In addition to speed, the ' ·. 

### . surveyors were known to sacrifice precision in exchange for haste in an effort to maintain From the b e ginning, th e first surveys had problems. Many o f the deputy Nicholson, p. 8-9. 

### A warrant was issued calling for a certain amount of land. If the warrant gave the e xact loc ation, no further documents we re nec e ssary . If the description were lacking 01· insufficient, a survey was m a de by a deputy of the Surveyor General's Office . Upon a return of the survey a patent (i.e., 

### a deed) was issued to the purchaser, pro v ided the purchase price had been paid in full. The purchase price theoretically was due when 

### the warrant was issued, but the eagerness of the proprietors to have the colony settled, and thepoverty of most of the settlers led to the sale of most of the land on cre dit. In such cases the warrant 

### gave an equitable title which wasconflrmed as against all persons excepting the proprietor s by seven years actual residence. The prices and the conditions varied greatly. Quit-rents were usually reserved in addition to the purchase price, but discharged by the Divesting Act ofl 779, Section 9, except as to the Proprietary Manors. Six per cent of the amount ofl and purchased was often added on account of roads to be opened later. Most warrants contained a provision that there must be an actual settlement by residence w i thin two years. process is as follows: considered void . Kelly, 9 Watts at 117 . In sum, as concisely stated by Nicholson the31

Plaintiff h as the b u rde n of pro vi n g by a " f ai r prep o n deran c e of the evi den ce" th e y hav e I n m o dem d ay juri s pruden ce , the corre c t metho d o f re so l vi n g a l and di spute is thro u gh an acti o n to qu iet title pursuan t to Pa . R. C. P. 10 6 1 

### e t . s e q : In s uch an ac tio n, the Mod e m day jurispruden ce [ b J y th e mid-I B O O s, mu ch of the publi c domain had been so ld to p ri vate in di vidu als. At times, sm all, unappro priated tra c ts are 

### still unc ov ered b y survey an d titl e 

### search. Th e s e tr a cts , when found, 

### are av ail ab l e for ap p ro pri ati on pr ovi ded the D epartme nt o f Fo re s t s and W aters (Departmen t o f E n v ironm ental R es o urces ) waiv es the ir fi r st - purc h ase optio n . T o d ay, th e L an d Re c o rd s D ivi sion, Pennsylv ani a His to ric al andMuseu m Co mmissi on (f

o rm erl y the L and O ffice) i s- responsi bl e fo r maintai n in g th e origin al record s an d disp os in g of v ac ant l an d foun d un c l ai me d . It has also b e e n d e legate d th e resp o nsibility to make c onn ec ted dr afts of 

### all the original surveys . H erm ans e n, p . 3

- 3, 3 -4 . H erm an s e n n o te s T h ere 

### is no s urvey o f or din ary s i ze , th e lin es of whi ch 

### will me as ure ex actl y to th e co rner s , or to th e plac es where th ey on c e s too d; hence e v ery surve yor i n traci n g o ld s u rveys e x p e c ts to find and d oes find the l ength o f e very lin e diff eri n g more 0 1· les s fr om his draft . a g ain s ince 179 2 . A s stated in Martz v. H arlex , 4 Watts 261, 26 3 (Pa . 1 8 3 5 ) As 

### a. result o f the problem atic s urvey s , this issue ha s been litig ated tim e and ti me · [t]he depu ty surveyor ( o r assistant) worke d w i th two o r more chain-carriers and axme n . Man y time s the ch ain-c arri er s an d axmen w ere supplied by the ap plic ant re que s tin g the surve y , Frequently, they w ere pe o pl e from the l o c al n eighb o rh o od o r drifter s p assing thro ugh ' the area. Alth o ugh the t asks perfo rmed by th e s u rvey c re w did n o t require much 

### s urvey knowledge, the me as urem ents did require s o m e care and dili g ence . From prior ex perienc e , it w as generall y pro ve n th at p o or ch ain -c arri ers m e ant po o r surve ys . T here fo re, depu ty surve y or s were in structed to ch oo se their c hain

- carriers carefull y fro m men of good standin g . I n 18 0 3, the legis lature requ ired all c hai n-carri er s to take oath s to ensure th at the y wo uld p erfo rm m ea sure ments dili g ently and carefully .... Ho we ver, i t i s g eneral knowledg e th at the wo rk o f the earl y c h ain- carriers l e ft much to b e desired. 'It is a well-known fact that bu t fe w of the rec ord ed di stance s o f the earl y s urve y s were o ften f o und c o rrect, when run b etw een th e m o nume n ts o n the ground . ' Hermansen, 3" 7 quoti n g Prlngle v. R o ger s, 44 

### A. 2 7 5 (18 9 9) .. , I32

to be "reforme d " . D e f

en d ant J.R. 

### Fraker's first two argum ents; c o ns is tin g of seven te en Th ere is a significant am o unt o f dispute a s to wh e th er the d e e d s i n qu esti o n nee d

Th e De e ds do n ot n e ed to b e R e fo nned th e Court c o ncl u des th at the Pl aintiffs have c o mplied with P a, R.C .P. 1 065 b e caus e as

~ discuss e d t

nfia, th e Pl ain ti ffs , thr o ugh th e t e stim o n y o f the ir expert, have s u f fi cie ntl y. described th e lands to which they seek to quiet title. "which requires th at the y d es cri b e th e l an ds to whi ch th ey s ee k to qui et ti tle ." Howev er , The D e fend an t s argue th e Pl ai ntiffs h ave fail e d to c ompl y w i th P a. R. C. P . 1'0 6 5 Pa, Su per . 543, 

### 544 ( 1 904) . require th e citati o n o f au th o rity that in ejectmen t th e p lainti ff must re c over up o n th e s tre ngth of his o wn ai 1 d not upon th e w e akn e ss o f hi s a d vers ary ' s ti tl e , " Cri s t v. B o u st, 26 A . 2 d 83, 89 (Pa . Sup er . 1991 ) ). " It i s to o cl ear fo r ar gu m e n t an d too we ll se ttle d to e x c lus ive po ssessi o n vis-a- v is proof of paramount ti tle.!") ( quo tin g Sutt on v. M ill er , 

### 592 19 9 7) ( "' Ej e ctmen t is a possess o ry a cti o n w here in a plaintiff must p rove the right to 1 04 , l 08 (P a . S u p er . 19 9 1 ) ; S e e als o Robe rt s v . Pursley , 70 0 A.2 d475, 48 0 ( Pa . S up er. Unlike an ac ti o n to qu i et ti tle , in an e j e c tment ac tion , a p laintiff has th e burden to est ablish " the right to imme diate exclusi v e po ss e ssi o n. " D o m an v . B r ogan , 592 A. 2 d d e mo ns trated they have b e tter ti tle . S ee al so Co mmon w ealth v. P e nnsylv ani a G ame C ommissi o n , 5 6 5 A. 2 d 8 59 , 86 1 ( Pa. Co mmw, 1 989). Up o n th i s sh o win g, th e P lain tif f i s d e emed to hav e ti tl e to. 

### the land u n til a be tter ti tle is s ho w n b y an ad v er se p arty , P off e nberg er , 7 7 6 A . 2d at 10 2 1. The C ourt ,} fi nds th at the P laintiffs hav e's atisfi e d their burden and the D e f en dant s h av e not titl e to th e land . P off

enberger v. Go l d s te i n, 776 A.2d 103 7, 10 2 1 (Pa. Cm w lth , 2 001 );33 9 In Reg i o n s the court refu se d to reform a m o rtgage where th e mort gage company un il aterall y an d mist aken l y re moved a s pou se ' s name fro m the mortgage be c ause th ere wa s e vid e n ce th at th e mortga g or s co mmitte d any typ e o f b e d faith o r fr au d, Rather , It was th e bank, as th e mortg ag e e who mad e th e mi s t ake . Dudas h . 4 6 0 A.2d 3 2 3 (Pa . Super , 1 983 )) . R e gi o n s Mort gag e , Inc, v . Mu thle r , 889 A.2d 3 9, 4 2 

# (Pa. 2 00 5) 9 (guoting Dudash Y, had '" s uc h knowledge of the mistake as 

### toj u stify an inferen c e o f fr aud or bad fai th.?' j u stify r ef

o rmation of a deed or mort g age only wh e n the party oppo s i n g the reform ati on o f For d City v . Gu ff

ey , 2 0 0 A. 16 0 , 16

3 

## (P a . S u p er. 1938) . A unil ater al mistake may 2 2 ' 1 b u t in fa c t was con v eying " l ot N o: 2 1 . "); Arm s tron g· County Bui l din g 

### and Loan Assn of a de e d whe n a lan d compan y thou g h t it was c onveyi n g a parcel des c ribe d a s "lot No . 

# . Saving s & L oan Co . v. Ali cia Land C o ., 

### 13 A.2d 65, 

### 66' (Pa. 1 940) (allowin g re formation As a gener al rule , for a court t o allow reformation of a 

### deed , th ere rnu ~t be a mutu al mistake i n the descriptio n of the land e d inte nded to b e c onveyed , S e e U n i ontown lands. In reality, if the Court were to re - draw any o f the b oundaries o f 

### PHH C 's l ands as . se t forth in its de e ds, i t w o u ld constitute a d e e d reformation." 

### Propose d Findings o f Fact and Conclusions of

Law o f D efenda n t Janet M Fraker

, p. 

### 31. For the foregoing re asons , 

### the Court concludes that w h at th e P l aintiffs d e mand does not constitute a "re formation" , r" reformation, how e ver, th e y do seek for the Cou rt to re - draw th e bou n dari es of PHHC ' s the Defe n dant Janet 

### M . Fraker argues> " P lainti ffs maintai n that they d o not seek a d eed 

### Pla t nttjfs ' Proposed Find i ngs of

Fa c t and Conclusions of

Law, p. 

### 43. On the contrary, specifically , the Plaintiffs 

### aver , "[rJ~fonnati o n 

### is an equitable remedy re s erved for c a se s · of mutual mi stake 0 1 · fraud where th e c ourt re-writes th e parties' a g reement or deed . " to th i s sin g le 

### Iss u e , The P lainti ffs do n ot di s pute th e requ i rements of 

### reformatio n . More (17) pages, an d De fe n d an t Jane tM . Fraker' s 

### fourth, ei g hth and tenth arguments al l relate ,I' 

## )

)34 ' [ wJhere the return has Iain for years in the office undisturbed, without any opposing claim or possession, more particularly where the owner has paid the public taxes, the presumption is a "violent>' one, and so ought always to be left to -the jury, of the survey being a regular one, though all the marked lines are not, at Rittenhouse and Kell}". have noted, the weight of evidence, taking into consideration judicial preference."), Courts following survey, a 'preponderance' or majority of evidence is required to reestablish a boundary. Given several possible locations for a boundary, the correct location is determined from correspond with 

### it as to quantity and boundary."); Hermansen, 5-3 ('~For a retraeement not the case, the patent must be corrected and reformed by the survey, and made to (Kelly, 9 

### Watts at 117) ("And wherever it happens, from mistake or otherwise, that this is making a second and illegal survey, deserve no favorable consideration whatever.");

, J •

. 

## . . returned into the land office, The parties who ~ttempt to violate the right of property, by and vendees are bound to take notice of a valid survey marked upon the ground and Hole 

### v. Rittenhouse. 25 Pa. 491, 497 (Pa. 

### i 855) (''The Commonwealth and her agents Since 1839, cases have repeatedly held that the survey must match the patent. See (Pa. 1907)), agreement.": Bosler, 190 A. at 721 (quoting Graham v. Carnelri.e Steel Co,, 66 A. 103 remember the facts that a mistake was made and that the writing does not express the establish mistake wit must clearly appear by the testimony of witnesses who distinctly [ defendant]' s part existed. Therefore, a case for reformation was not made out."). To (Plaintiff "wholly failed to produce clear and positive proof that a mistake on Bosler v. Sun 

### Oil Co., 190 A. 718, 719~20 (Pa. 1937); See also Bosler, 190 A. at 721 Where a Plaintiff is relying on reformation of the deeds based on the grantee's intention of the quantity of land conveyed, the Plaintiff must demonstrate mutual mistake.

) 

### )

### 35

Dou g h erty family to ok ti tle. d etermin ed that no titl e was s ho wn in An th ony Sh arp , th e origi nal grantor fro m wh ic h th e t ax e s o n th e p roperty s i nc e at l east 18 70. Howe v er, th e dispute ar os e because i t 

### was later famil y timb ered o n, ins talle d fen ces, c ultiv ate d rye, mad e a 

### small c l earing! and p ai d the de mo n strated that the p ro perty was a w il d unculti vated mou n tain that the D o u gherty deeded to differe nt Do u gherty f amily memb ers i n an unb ro ke n chai n . Th e evid e n c e sp ecifical l y , i n 18 57 th e D o u gherty f amil y p urc h as ed th e p ro p erty and the property wa s S h arp' s 

### deb ts . T h e sale wa s o rd ered in 18 4 9 and Math ias B ai er p urchase d the pro p erty. There after , for a sixty (60) y e ar peri o d, th ere re m ain e d an unb roke n c h ai n of ti tle . More admini strato r of hi s estate p e titi o n e d the o rph ans ' c o urt to s e ll th e real estate to p ay for purporte d l y o wn e d real es t ate in S c huy l kill C oun ty. Wh e n S harp died 1 8 4 7 , the 

# I



# I B o th p arties re l y h eavi ly o n Do ugh erty an d ar gu e that b o th the case an d pres umpti ve gran t- doc trin e s upp ort th e ir resp e cti ve positi ons. In that case Antho n y S h arp Presumpti v e G 1 -ant N orthumb e rl an d Coru Company y. C l e me n t, 95 P a . 1 2 6, 1 37 (18 8 0). n o t w h ere 

### it s h o ul d o r mi g ht h av e b e en loc ate d, b ut wh ere it a ctu ally w a s lo c ated ." surve y . " O th er c o urts h ave note d, " [ i] n as c ertai ni n g th e loc atio n o f a tr act the inqu iry is surve yors origi n al m arks and fu rther held "[ t j itles wo u l d be in sec ure , in deed , i f, after s uc h a p erio d, the absen ce of vi s ibl e m ark s were h e ld s uffici e nt to in v ali d ate a return ed a di st ant d ay, to b e foun d on the gro und; and after tw e nty -o ne ye ars, 

### by an al ogy to all pre su mp ti o ns, I wo uld co nsi der it a p re sumpti o n of l aw ; and , like li very o f s e i sin , it o ugh t to be p re s urned.' Onnsb v v. Ihms en, 34 P a, 462, 4 70 (185 9) ( quotin g M oc k v . A stl ey, 13 S erg . & Rawle 3 8 2 ( P a. 182 5) ) . The Orms by co urt n o te d th e diffi culty of atte mpti n g to fi nd th e

) .I ' )

### 36

di spute , 

### 1 911 , a p erio d o f over s i xty (60) y ears . 

### kh D uri n g that ti m e pe ri o d B ai er or unbroken c h ai n of titl e e xi s te d fro m the d ate of th e sal e in 1 849 to th e c urrent d ate of th e original patent i n 

### 17 95. Jd . at 100 1 . T h e c o urt als o pla ced e mph a s i s o n the fac t th at an fact that B ai er, as the purch as er of the real e s tate fro m S h arp was t aki n g ti tl e from th e In app l ying th e do ctrine to th e facts o f the case the cou rt p lac ed emp h asis on th e D oug h te ry, 81 

### A at 10 0 1 . [i]n the pre s e nt c a s e the fac t s all p o in t in o ne direc ti o n> an d no t a s in g le fa ct indic ates anythi n g to th e co ntrary. A n tho n y S harp at th e time o f his d eath c l aime d thi s lan d. I t w as s old for the payme n t o f hi s d eb ts . Re c ord n o ti ce was giv e n that the purch a ser at that sal e to ok ti tl e from th e e s tate o f Sh arp wh o he l d und er c l ai m of ti tl e from Kan tn er by su ndry co nv eyanc e s . T h at p u rchas e an d those h o l d ing und er h i m h ave h ad th e co nstru c ti ve or actu al pos s essio n s in ce 

### 1 8 4 9 . The Do u g h ertie s [ sic] h ave pai d th e taxes ass e ssed ag ain s t it fo r a peri o d o f fo rty ye ar s at lea s t. Th ey have ex erc i s ed d o mi ni o n ov er it fo l' m o re th an fifty year s. Duri n g all these year s n o on e a s serted an adv ers e cl ai m o f title un der John K antner , and n o o n e asserts s u c h a claim i n th e p res e n t case - , Th ere i s a b reak in th e c h ain o f titl e from Kantn er to Antho n y Sharp , bu t from th e tim e hi s titl e passe d to M athi as B ai er to the pres e nt, th e suc c e s sors in ti tl e h ave stood u pon this anci en t ti tl e un ch all e n g ed b y any ad v er se c laimai nt . If anyone e l se ever c lai me d adverse title under J o hn Kan tn er, an d th ere i s no thi n g to eve n remo te l y in dicate th at s uc h a c l aim was ever m ade , h e h au le d down hi s fl a g an d fle d th e fie ld l ong ago . of re medy. !" Dou gh ort.y y . W el s han s , 81 A. 

### 9 9 7, 1000 (Pa . 1911 ) (qu oti ng Ri ttenho u se, 25 P a. at 

### 4 91 ) . Th e co urt th e n an al yze d th e foun dati on o f th e p re su mp ti ve g r an t d o c tri ne an d th en app li e d the doctrin e to the s p e cific fa c ts to h old dr aws to it th e poss e ssio n, an d th at this p os se s s io n i s to b e de em ed ac tu al , for all p urposes arg um en t an d auth ori ty , i t i s th at whi c h a f fi rms that th e le gal ti tl e to unc u lti v ate d l an ds . a cqu ire d th e prop erty di d n o t p recl ud e Do u gh erty fro m as serting ti tl e . 

### In rulin g th e co urt note d, m [i]f any p rincipl e in th e l aw of Pe nn sy l van ia c an b e reg arde d as we l l s e ttled 'b y Th e D ou @ erty c ou rt h e ld that the mis s ing deed dem onstratin g h o w Sharp I l 

### )

) 

### )37

re v e rsin g the low er court, h e ld th at the 1794 warrant mu st b e used as th e startin g p o int un less the 1794 o ffi ci al dist ance s an d calls " were gre atly ov e rru n," Th e Court, in be tw een the 17 84 and 1 7 93 warrants were too f ar for the 1 7 9 4 w arr ant to fit in b e tw ee n reco rded. The Court was able to co nclude purel y on "conje c ture " that th e distances on th e 1784 and 1 793 w arrants, which, 

### as previous l y m e ntioned, were n e ver p r operly (here inafter "th e 1 7 9 4 warr ants"). In lo c atin g the 1794 w arr ants, the 1 794 warrants reli e d warrant s in que s tion in th e c as e , were obt ain e d by M ary Niel and Thomas Masto n bloc k of thi rteen (13) warr ants were obt ained (hereinafter "th e 1793 w arrants'.'). Ag ain how e v er, th e 1 793 warran ts we re nev er prop erl y rec o rd e d . In 1794 tw o ( 2 ) warrants, th e warr an ts"). However , the 17 8 4 warr ants were not rec orded pro p erl y. In 1793 another eld er . " In the c ase , a b l o ck of warrsnts were obt ai n e d in 1784 (herei nafter "th e 17 84 

### . . found to interf

ere with trac ts belonging to th e o l der blocks, th e youn g er gi v es way to the o ffice in b l ocks, they are t o b e lo c ated on the gro und in b l o c ks. If, then , any of th e m ate Pennsylvania Suprem e C o urt held "where surveys were made and returned into the land Pennsy l vania jurisprudence. In Hageijy y. Mathers, 3 1 Pa. 348 , 355 ( 1 8 5 8) the In a s i mil ar vei n , the concept of " block warrants " has a stro n g foundation in Block Warrants Defendan t Janet M . Fr aker, p. 29 . owner o f h er e ntire lands. " Proposed Findings o f Fact and Conclusions of Law o f 

# . doctrine of presumpti ve g rant, d e fendant Jan e t M. Fr aker mu s t be presumed 

### to b e the In the pre s ent ca s e, Defendant Jane t M. Fraker argues, " [ a jccordi n g to the Dougherty owne d the property un c hall e nged b y any other c l aimal n t, Both Baier and Dougherty were paying tax e s on the property. , I 

### )

### 38 

# .

di d n o t cl os e. 

### N . T. M ay 18 , 2011, p . 27. A ll e n Henry did s om e mo re in ve s ti g ati o n and <,\, , H o w e v er, upon clo ser i n s p e cti on. D ou g Henry re ali ze d th at B arnhart ' s d ee d desc ri pti on p urc h a s e appro xim ate ly 9 0 a cres o r 9 0 plu s a cre s ... " N. T . M ay 18 , 2 011 , p. 2 7 i wa s 1 2 0 ac res . He w an ted to keep·20 ac res w h ich m e an t th e c l ub w o u l d b e ab l e to te s tifi e d, "Mr. B arnhart th o u g h t he own e d 120 a cres . Th at's wh at his d e ed sai d , th at it a cquire a dditi o n al p ro p erty fr om Ge n e Barnh art. N.T, M ay 18, 2 0 11, 

### p'. 25. A llen H enry In the p re se nt c ase , thi s d isp ute began when Plum Holl ow w a s in n eg oti ati o ns to se ni o r surv ey w ill co ntr ol."). c o ntr olli n g , and wh ere the lin es o f s eni o r and ju n ior s urv e y s c on flict , the lin es o f the bo u nd ari e s in th e g rant s fro m a co mmo n granter c o nflict , the grant :fir s t e xec ute d i s block, an d there f

o re o f e ach tract therein") ; 6 P.L.B. BOUND A RIE S§ 

### 1 5 ("Wh e n s h o w th e location of any trac t in the block is s ome evid e nc e o f the l o c ati o n o f the wh o le p roved by p ro vin g the loc ation of the block . ... 

### Every mark on th e ground te n ding to and retu rn ed a s a block int o th e land offi ce, the lo c ation of e ac h tr ac t therein m ay be bl o ck.") ; Northumb erland Coal, 

### 95 Pa . at 1 3 7 CWhen origin al su rv e y s have be en ma de arbitrarily located in disre g ard of the lines and corners found u pon o ther part s of th e and so return e d, must be located upon the ground as a block; th at n ei th er of th e m can be the instruction of th e 

### trial court "that the thirteen tr acts havin g been s u rv e y ed in a bloc k, re m ains cogent today. S e e Pruner v. Brisbi~ 98 Pa. 202, 210 (1881) (Finding n o erro r i n Cases since Hagerty have followed the concept of b lo ck warran ts 

### and th e concept Mhat 3 5 7. quantity are fixed, finall y and fo r ever, as between her own er an d th e C o mm o nwe alth." for the 1784 and 1793 surveys becau s e the 1794 s urvey was pate n ted and " h er lines and 

## )

### 39 10 Pages 24 through t 82 on the first day of trial, and pages 5 through 52 on the second day of trial. This does not include cross examination. 11 The Court uses the terms "reformation" or "correction" witn a tremendous amount of trepidation, The definition as used in this oplnlon fs simply interpreting what the parties thought they were obtaining had a thorough title search been performed. The Court therefore concludes that correcting 

### Mary Trotter warrant is proper. Accordingly, the Court corrects Mary Trotter warrant so that final boundary line is the Mary Trotter warrant is incorrect, a fact no one disputes, the Mary Trotter warrant must be corrected 11 to reflect the correct block. Kelly 1 9 Watts at 116. surveys of the John Trotter, Elwin Fish and Mary Trotter warrants, Accordingly, since a block, all of the deeds now in question, as junior surveys, must give way to the senior Additionally, all of the warrants were for 

### 400 acres. Id. Since the surveys are considered 1794, the warrants must be considered as a block. See Plaintiffs Exhibits 23, 42, 100. Fish warrant or 

### Mary Trotter warrant and all of the warrants were returned on March 1, Since all of the lands now in dispute are derived from the John Trotter warrant, the Elwin

. ' 

### . principles of deed construction, is merely construing what the deeds intended to convey. boundary dispute case. The Court is not re-writing 

### any deeds. The Court, using From the beginning of this opinion, the Court has stated that this case is a title back to the Mary Trotter warrant consists of, with limited objections from the parties, 205 pages o{testimony 10 • N.T. May 18, 2011, p. 27. Allen Henry's testimony about his research and the tracing of four or five years, I eventually concluded that there is, in fact, land that is in this are~ of Plum Hollow that currently remains titled in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. , .. " testified that this fact "got me thinking about how can someone not have the acreage to find their deed, and in my investigation to make a long story short, it took me the next concluded that Barnhart had only ninety-three (93) acres. As a result Allen 

### Henry 

### ) ' )40 13 The Court notes that this was used in the past. See fug11te y, Coxe, 4 Serg, & Rawle 293, 294 ("It has been usual for surveyors not to make an actual running of the closing line; they leave that open In order to enable them to correct the survey, if necessary, when they have calculated the quantity of land included in the lines; they then close the survey on paper, and sometimes shorten or lengthen one of the lines in order to make the quantity correspond with the warrant. This practice ts very convenient and has been sanctioned by long usage." effectuate the intent of the parties at the time of the original subdivision!' See also Pencil "[t]he primary 

### function of 

### a court faced with a boundary dispute is to ascertain and Marks 

# v. Ligonier Borough. 82 

### A. 477, 479 (Pa. Super. 1912). 

### In RQth v. Halberstadt 392 A.2d 855, 857 (Pa. Super. 1978) the court stated, sufficiently precise for the purpose of identificati on and to enable a surveyor to locate it," identify the land conveyed. and need not necessarily be technically accurate, but must be Brogan, 592 A.2d 104, (Pa. Super. 1964), "The object of a description in a deed is to Murrer v. American Oil Co. , 359 A.2d 817, 819 (Pa. Super. 1976); See also Doman v. ) owned by the litigants now? 

### "The question of 

### what is a boundary line is a matter of law, but where a boundary line, or comer, 

### is actually located is a question for the trier of fact," rudimentary-where is the Mary Trotter Patent located with respect to the property boundary so that the boundary closes 1 2 • Once the Court makes these changes. the Mary Trotter warrant is left with appro x i~ately467.6 acres, Pl ~ tiffs' have satisfied th e ir . 

## l bJn:den oflocating the ,...-

. \Mary Trotter Paten t / ·· ,;;;::. , ., Once the Court makes the charrges . discussed ' above the question becomes rather · West. This change allows the plot of the patent to match the survey exactly. Plaintiffs Exhibits 146, 147. Finally, the Court will add an additional 25.77 perches to the eastern warrant. Secondly, the Court will change the course from North 46 West to North 64 . warrant to close such that the Mary Trotter tract is now adjacent to the John Trotter changed from South 56 West to North 56 West. This change allows the Mary Trotter41

v ~J3uchait 551 A.2d 302, 305~06 (Pa. Super. 1988) ( 11 Initially, we note that the primary function of the trial court resolving a boundary dispute is to ascertain the intent of the grantor at the time of the original subdivision."); Appeals of Dallas, 82 A.2d 676, 679 (Pa Super. 1951); (The object of the interpretation rules is to "ascertain the actual location of 

### the boundary as made at the time,"). "The question of what is a boundary line is a matter of law, but where a boundary line, or comer, is actually located is a question for the trier of fact." Murrer, 

### 359 A.2d at 819; See also Schimp v. Allaman, 659 A.2d 1012, 

### 1034 (Pa, Super. 1995). Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly utilized the same general rules in interpreting deeds. Notably, '"where there is a conflict between courses and distances or quantity of land and natural or artificial monuments, the monuments prevail. m Dom@, 592 A.id at 110 (quoting Roth, 392 A.2d at 857); See also Merlino v. Eannotti et ux., 110 A2d 783 1 787 (Pa, Super. 1955). If a beginning comer is known, "the calls ought not to be reversed except in order to make the survey close." Merlino, 110 A.2d 

### at 787. Additionally, "[e]vidence of the acreage of land, especially where ... the number of acres is followed by the words 'more or less' has little weight against specific boundaries and is in its nature an uncertain method of description and often a mere estimate." Dawson v. Coulter, 106 A. 187) 188 (Pa. 1919). However) if'fhere is a mistake in the description, •Hthe call adopted as the controlling one should be that most consistent with the apparent intention of the 

### grantor.?' Murrer, 359 A.2d at 820 (gypting Baker v. Roslyg Swim Club, 213 A.2d 145, 149 (Pa. Super. 1965)). Generally, if a map ls referred to in a grant or conveyance, the map is deemedto be incorporated into the instrument and therefore 1)

### 4 2

"given considerable weight" i n determin i ng the true de s cription of the l and. Appeal s of Dallas , 82 A.2d at 680 . Additional l y . v'th e natu re and quantity of the interes t con v eyed must be a s certained from the instrument itse l f and cannot be orally shown 

### in the ab sence o f fraud, accident or mistake and we seek to ascertain not what the parties may hav e intended 

### by the language but what is the meaning of the words," Yuscavag e v. Hamlin, 1 3 7 A, 2 d 

### 242, 244 (Pa. 1958) . Second, "effect must be given to 

### all l anguage of the ins trumen t and no part shall be rejected if it can be given a meaning," 

### liL. (emp hasis supplied ) . La s tly, "th e language of th e deed shall be interpreted in the light of th e sub j e ct matter, th e apparent object 01• purpos e of the parties and the-conditions- e xistin g when it w a s ex ec uted." The d e scription of the prop erty by courses and distance s control s ov er th e qu anti ty o f land. Bo s l er y. Sun Oil Co . , 1 9 0 

### A. 718, 719 (Pa. 1937); S e e also Deppen v. Bogar, 7 Pa. Super. 

### 434, 445 (1898) (m Q uantity i s a circumstan c e o f s light, ofte n o f no . w e i g ht in a question of title, but 

### it m ay have a marke d eff ec t wh ere th e qu e stion i s on e of bo un d ary. If th ere b e two lines , one c orre spondin g with the quanti ty of l and 

### in th e d ee d, and the other l arge ly in exce ss the interf erenc e would h ave wei g ht i n d e termini ng the true

· lin e , e s pecially when stron g l y assisted b y o th er evidence.:" (qu o ti ng Kenne dy v . Lu b ol d, 88 P a . 246 , 247 (1879)); See also 6 P.l.E. § 14 (A " statement i n s erte d i n a c o nv e y anc e, of th e qu an ti ty of land supposed to be conve y ed must yiel d to c o ur ses and di s t an c es 

## )

)43 13 The writer notes that DefendantJ, Ronald Fraker's expert, Thomas M, Engl erth, e x plainedthese general prlnclples as he was describing what he typically does when trying to locate a survey. More speclfically, . Englerth testified Well, first and fo remost ls trying to find rnonumentatlon, and then the second I would think would does the monumenratlon fit or come close to fitting any deed calls that you may have . And then after that, you find other things that will lend credence to the location of the lines, For example, blaze lines running between two found monuments, You may find fence Jines. You may find stone rows and you may find people have posted the ground, Notes of Testimony, July 26, 2011, p. 1$-16. "all kinds of property surveys, subdivisions for land developments ... topographic surveys" University in 1978 with an associate's degree in land surveying and has been surveying credentials, Notes of Testimony, May 

### 19, 2011, p. 129. He graduated from Penn State court proceedings op. numerous occasions and, 

### in this Court's opinion, impressive· Mr. Witter has been a licensed professional surveyor since 1985, has testified before in 

### Maly Trotter warrant, through the credible te stimony of Timothy Witter andAllen Henry, The Court finds the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the location of the

Location ofMalj' Trotter 

# I I southern. edge of 

### the property, control,"), In 

### Duncan v. 

### Madara, 106 Pa. 562 (1884) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court h e ld that u s ing the total size of the lot was proper Where a deed for property did not prop erl y clo s e on the northern edge even. though the parties knew the location of the referred to a stated area as the southern end and remaining 

### part of a cert ain tract 

### will distances, however, and where no lines are found actually marked out, a description by See 6 P .LE. Boundaries § 14 (' • where it is impossible to close a survey by courses and However; where the property description cannot close based on the courses and d e scriptions found in the property deed, a description of the quantity of area 

# will control. 

### less.:" 1 

### 3). especially where the reference to quantity of land is qualified by the words 'more or 

# I

, I4 4 1 4 N otes o fT e sti m o ny May 1 9 , 2 011, p , 1 3 1

- 1 69 and N o te s of Tes timo ny M ay 2 0, 201 1 , p . 4 -4 6 Se e Pla intiffs ' Exhibits 97, 60. Tra ct N o . 2 (b) in th e Remy D e ed can be trac ed by an as soc iated draft that established the no rthea stern com er o f the Th o mas Sti nson Patent. an unbro ke n, re gular chain of con v eyan ces to a d ee d, dated Feb ru ary 2 6 , 1 8 69 , from Ephr ai m Ramsey to W illi am P e t e rs th at co nt ai n e d a d escri ption t ake n fr om a s urve y and T he e v id e nce ' demon s tr ate s th at Tr a c t N o. 2 (a) in the H enry D ee d can b e tr ac ed by c re dible and ac curate. te stim o n y . Accor din gly, this Co urt mus t a ccept All e n H e nry's testim o ny and research as A gai n h ow e ver, the De fen dants h av e d o n e no thin g to reb u t the ac cura c y o f A ll e n H enry' s relati o n s hip w ith Plai nti ff Plum H oll ow since the late 1970s. N.T. May 18, 2011, p. 2 0 . prop erty no w in disp u te . N.T. May 18, 2011, p . 19. Allen H e nry has als o had a bro th er , P l ainti ff Dou g las Henry, another b ro th er and fo ur (4) s is ter s have title to the T he C o urt re c o gn i zes th at the testim o ny of Al le n He nry is b i ase d be cau se his positi o n . introduc ed. N. T. May 18, 2011 , p. 7 . The Defendan ts have don e nothing to reb u t this cred i bl e. A d ditionall y , the Pl ain tiffs in tr odu ce d 148 e x hib i ts in s upport of th eir p os iti o n . At the o uts et o f th e tri al, the D e fendants stipulated to th e auth e nticity o f 

# all exh i bits th e chai n of titl e from th e M ary Tro tter Patent throu gh the pre s en t day 

### was exte nsive and o f ti tl e b a ck thr ou gh th e Mary Trotter Patent, Th e tes timony from All e n Henry d e tailing 

# . The C o urt fu rthe r find s th at Plu m Holl o w has s u ffici e ntly d e m o n s trated 

### i ts c hai n evid e n c e . pres e nted n oevi d e n c eto c ontradict, di scredi t , o r otherw ise qu es ti on th e Pl ain ti ff s ' ev er s ince . Id . Mr . Wltter's te s tim o ny about the lo c ation of th e Mary Tr otter w arran t consi s t s o f 8 0 pa ges ' " o f trans cript and reli es o n c ountless exh ibi ts. Th e De fe n d ants h ave



### )45

unbroken) regular chain of corrveyances to a deed, dated December 

## i 7, 1862, from Rob~rt Ramsey and Wife, to Jacob Wible that describes, based upon a survey and associated 

### draft, a parcel of land that Hes within and forms the southwestern corner of the Elwin Fish patent. See P!alntl/fs 'Exhibits 97. Tract No. 3 in the 

### Henry Deed can be traced by an unbroken, regular chain of conveyances to a deed, dated September 12, 1867, from John Hollard 

### Sr. and his 

### wife to George W. Hollard to a tract of land (hereinafter "Holland Tract"), that established the northwestern corner of the Mary Trotter patent, and the western boundary of the Holland Tract 

### is part of the western boundary of the 

### Mary Trotter patent. Plainttffs' Exhibit 98. The Holland Deed contains the accurate description of Tract No: 3 in the Henry Deed, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 117, p. 1. Next> Tract No. 1 of the Henry Deed as reflected on Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 123 to Timothy C. Witter's testimony shows this tract as the southeastern corner of the Charles Sewell Tract mid the final corner needed to establish the Four Comers. By locating the Four Comer.'>, the 

### Mary Trotter patent can be anchored to the Elwin Fish patent and its location determined, The location of the Mary Trotter patent by determining Four Comers at the northwestern corner of the 

### Mary Trotter patent is confirmed by the work that was done to the south where Timothy Witter' a survey Work allowed it to establish the 

### southern line of the John Trotter patent as depicted in Plaintiffs' Exhibit 125. Since the 

### John Trotter patent is senior and part of a block with the 

### Mary Trotter patent its location is paramount and the location of the southern line fixes the location of the Mary Trotter patent with greater precision as this line is fixed by the ad joiner of Patrick Neeley to the south. I j

### 46

Furth er c o nfirm ation of the locati on of th e 

### Mary Trotter ari s e s fr om findin g a plante d s tone on th e Elwin Fi sh w e stern b o undary at a c orner in comm on with Ch arles Sewell and 

### J run e s Justice w hich i s a re co gn ized m o nument of that c o mer. Pla/. nttffs 'Exhibit 122. T his plante d stone h e lps pinpoint the Elwin Fish p atent locati o n and n arrows the p arame ters for the M ary Trotter patent l o c ation, Lookin g at th e e vidence p e culiar to th e Mary Tr otter patent confirms the loc ation . 

### A comer in c o mmon with def e ndant Bonni e Miller , Henry , and defen d an t Du l ce Bur g er Hall (Hereinafter "H enry - Hall

- Mill e r - Corn er") is a com er th at is also a M ary Tro tter com er. The comer 

### is i dentifi e d as p o int" A" in th e Su rve y o f 196 5. The corner w as i d e ntified as an iron pln in th e Su rve y of 1976> a " w hite oak stu mp (g one)" in the Henry de ed a s w e ll as a "w.o, stump (g on e) " in th e Surv e y of 1965. This suggest s that th e

. comer w a s never prop erly surveyed and marked 

### by monument. A n o ther corn er in common 

### with H e nry, an d defendan t D ulce Burger Hall (h erein after " Henry- H all-Comer 

### #1.") is also a 

### Mary Trotter co rner. Th e corner is identi fi e d as point " B" in the Surv ey o f 1965 . The co me r is sh o wn as a twenty - two ( 2 2) in ch white oak in Plaint iffs ' Exhibit 1 23. The corner w as identi fie d as a twenty-~our (24) in ch oak i n th e Survey o f 197 6 , as agre ed to by H e nry and J ._ Ronald Fraker b as ed on H enry' s uncon tradicte d testimony. Th e H e nry de e d calls it a white o ak and it is marked "w , o." in the Survey of 1965. T his su gg ests that this com er also has nev er been pro perly su rv eyed and marked by m onument. A second corner in c o mmon wi th H enry and defendant Dulce B urg er Hall (hereinafter " H e nry - H all

- Co rne r f/!2. " ) is a comer sh ared by 

### Henry and Hall , lo cated on th e Fl eming/Trotter lin e as first me nti oned 

### in th e Will o f Barbara Myers. The co m er i s

# l 47 identified as point "C" in the Survey of. I 965. The comer is identified 

## as "Existing Post in Stones" in JRF Exhibit A-1. The Survey of 1976 and the Henry deed call for a stone as a monument, and a "stake in atones" on Plaintiffs' Exhibit 123. TI1e Survey of 1965 calls for a "w.o, '', suggesting that the corner has never been properly survey and arced with monuments. The boundary line that connects the Henry-Hall-Miller-Comer and the HenryHall-Corner #1 was identified as line "AB" on the Survey of 1965 but was not retraced. It is not identified in J.R. Fraker Exhibit A-1. Plaintiffs' expert 

### failed to retrace the line but identified it as line "P6,' (hereinafter "P6 line") in his testimony and on his Exhibits. The boundary line that connects the Henry-Hall-Corner 

### s I and the Henry-Hall Comer 

### #2 was identified as line < 1 BC' in the Survey of 1965 and it too was never retraced, That line was not identified in JRF Exhibit A-1; 

### it was retraced by Plaintiffs' expert and is an area where he found remnants of the fenceas discussed below. The course in the Mary Trotter patent 

### is "N 8 E 110 perches" and consists o f the following four (4) segments on Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 123: Henry-Hall-Corner #1 to Henry-Hall

- Corner 

### #2; Henry-Hall-Corner 

### #2 to Hall-Holland-Comer, which 

### is the boundary line between the two tracts currently owned by defendant Dulce Burger Hall; Hall-Holland-Com er to the Plum Hollow Road, whom Plaintiffs' expert identified as the two acre out sale from the Fleming Tract owned by Twila. M. Long; and the Plum Hollow Road to the Foux Corners, currently on the Henry Farm. In addition to the evidence from the location of the adioiners and use lines, Timothy C. Witter also documented physical evidence offence remnants in the area he identified as the Mary Trotter patent boundary. Although this is not conclusive, it I j j

### 48 Location of Deed of 1827 M ary T rotter p ate n t. c ircum s tantial e v idenc e such that the Pl ai n tiff s are ab le to p ro pe rly tr a c e title b ac k to th e Ke rlin . A g ain , how e ver> th e Pl aintiffs have d em onstr ate d thro u gh suffici ent T here i s a s ec o nd break in the ch ain o f titl e be twee n D ennis O 'Conn e r ( e ld er) an d Jam es n o re co rd e d d eed s , became ves ted in Ow e n And er son , See D ou ghertY , 8 1 A. at 1 001. confi rms that fe e simpl e title of the two tr acts owned b y James Kerlin, for which th ere are App leby D ee d an d the A . G . Kerlin D ee d , give ris e to 

### a pre sumpti o n of grant th at C e lia An der s o n, T hi s con flrmatio n, co mbined w ith th e recital s in th e A n ders o n D ee d, th e c o nfi rm ed the d e ed of c o nv e y an ce fo r thi s l an d fr o m the Es t ate of Ephr aim R amse y to Ande rso n, titl e w as confirm e d b y thi s Court, wh e n in 1 9 10, sitting as an Orph an's Court Whil e there i s a 

### break i n the c h ain ti tl e b e tw ee n J ames Kerlin an d Ephr ai m H e nry and a p lo t of th e partiti o n. S ee 

### P latmiff' s E xhi bit 1 05, · N. T. May 18, 2011 , p . 

### 15 8, C ounty . Plaintiffs su ffi ciently d e monstr ated this throu g h th e te stimony o f All e n K. l egal d e sc rip tio n to the partition in the E st ate of Denn i s O > Conn er (e l der) . in B e dford unb r o ke n c hain o f ti tle back to Celia A n d erson an d that chain · co ntain s th e same b asi c roadbe d on th e sou thern si de of the Hom .

, R elatin g t o P lum H ollow Hunti n g Club, Jue. 's

Chain of Ti tle to the Mal'y Trotte r Patent Plum 

### Ho llo w ' s ch ai n o f titl e b ac k to th e Mary 

### Tro tter p atent 

### i s s upp orte d by an th e remain i ng courses of the Mary Trotter pate nt on th e old fe nc e and · alo ng th e old th at the N 6 4 W

IS 64 E lin e i den tified on Pl ai n tiffs' Ex hibit No. 1 24 as line " PS" pla c es suppo rt s his ov erall c onclusion as to the loc ati o n of the bound ary. M r. Witter testifi e d49

and distances around the northwest boundary of the 

### Mary Trotter patent to the beginning. the Mary Trotter survey and patent, The description then continues the last three courses Justice, dec'd, which was the reputed owner of the Thomas Stinson patent at the time of East sixteen perches to a white oak" reaches a point described as at lands of William Residue, now owned by-Plum Hollow. The next course, "[njorth twenty five degrees a white oak .... " These lines mark the beginning of the common boundary with the by the residue of Land of Mary Trotter North fifty six degrees West sixty nine perches to five and one half degrees Bast one hundred and thirty perches to a Chestnut Oak, thence without creating a southern boundary in common with Robert Lodge, "[n [orth twenty of that eastern boundary to lands of Ro bert Lodge, The description then continues outside the eastern boundary of the Mary Trotter patent, but it does run the entire distance boundary, and then finally the western boundary with the habendum clause stating that ) the property contains 315 acres, The eastern boundary must be adjusted because it goes

with the northern boundary, then the eastern boundary, followed by the southern and quantity, but no natural monuments were ever found. The deed description started I The 

### known parameters of the Deed of 1827 contain ad joiners, metes and bounds, Hollow. remaining acreage from the Mary Trotter patent with the Deed of 1827 setting the boundary along tho southwestern comer of the 

### Mary Trotter patent that is titled in Plum Janet M. Fraker's land is derived entirely from the Deed of 1827. Plum Hollow owns the In addition to the errors in the Mary Trotter warrant, there are errors in the Deed of 1827 ~at prevent the Deed from closing. The location of this Dee? is critical to the outcome-ofthis case because, except for adverse possession discussed 

### irfia, Defendant I ,II J 50 Closing these two gaps will result in the Residue having about 152.6 acres and the outside boundary of the De e d of 1827 having 315 acres. However; the Court takes the 

### Plaintiffs' suggestion and will allow the par.ties the opportunity to negotiate a line. ~

The extent and acreage of Plum Hollow Hunting Club, Inc. ,s Title determine the boundary for the Second Gap to meet the northeastern corner of the Hom. boundary a distance of sixty-nine (69) perches. The final adjustment must be to Residue when the boundary follows a parallel line to the Mary Trotter patent southern Hollow, and determine the location of the 130 perch line 

### to the northeast corner of the .the 

### Mary Trotter patent to set the southeast corner of the Residue, now owned by Plum parties. Accordingly, the Court will adjust the First Gap along the southern boundary of repeatedly held that acreage is the only factor which can determine the intention of the 551 A.2d at 30? (quoting Dawson v. Coulter, 106 A. 187, 188 (Pa. 1919); See also Jedlicka v. Clemmer, 677 A.2d 1232, 1234 (Pa. Super . 1996). However, courts ha~e becomes a material factor in the determination of the intention of the parties.:" Pencil, line by either metes and bounds or monuments on the ground, .. eyidence of 

### the acrea~ the actual location of the boundary and the writing contains no words to definitely fix the method of description and often a mere estimate. Where, however, a doubt exists as to or less', has little weight a s against specific boundaries and is in its nature an unc ertain the acreage of land, especially where the number of acres is followed by the words 'more To ascertain this intent, courts use certain rules of construction-notably '" 1 

### f e]vidence of intent of the granter at the time of the original subdivision. See Pencil, 551 A.2d at 306. boundary as the acreage in the tract. The primary function of this Court is to ascertain the The errors in the description leave the major determining factor of setting the )

I 

### ·'

# I 51 Once the Court has determined that Plum Hollow has legal title 

### to the residue of the Mary Trotter patent, the question still remains+what is the extent of Plum Hollow's

- - -- - - · -iitle? The-inete~rand bounds description in the deeds 

### and surveys in-its chain of title do not match the metes and bounds descriptions of its adjoiners, The hlstorical description for 

### its property is rife 

### with error in acreage and consistent courses and distances. The one consistent element of 

### its title has been the consistency of its called adjoiners 

### and the consistency with which its adjoiners have called for the predecessors in title of Plum Hollow as adjoiners. Since the Appleby Deed, each deed has recited that it conveys the same real estate as its predecessor deed. Despite the repeated inaccuracies, the basic shape of the tract

. owned by Plum Hollow has been stable since the survey_ for the partition in the Dennis O'Connor (elder) Estate as 

### well as having adjoiners in the JRF chain of title on the north and the JMF chain of title to the east. The pm-titian 

### survey is defective, but claims to divide and convey all of the land of Dennis O'Conner (elder) that he had at his death in what is now Dublin Township, Fulton County, which includes all the Residue of the 

### Mary Trotter patent. Subsequent errors of description do not diminish Plum Hollows title or the extent of that title. Likewise, recent surveys cannot replace the ancient boundary lines with modern monuments that do not tie in to the ancient monuments. See 

### Reilly v. Mountain Coal Co , 7 54 

### A. 29, 33 (Pa. 1903). The location of Plum Hollow's real estate through the Appleby Deed is fixed by the location of the Clear Ridge Road on the west, real estate of Plum Hollow through Barnhart as well as Dale 

### Henry .on the south, the common boundary of the 

### Mary Trotter. 8 I..

52 line between me and Thomas E. Fleming and running back to the line between and Elijah 1/3 acre tract described as "off of the South end of my farm commencing at a point on the to Barbara Myers who devised the real estate to her son George Myers when it was a 29 the Mary Trotter patent. His title is traced back through Collins Shade and Lovada Kerlin estate owned by the widow of Simpson B. Carmack that lies in the northwestern corner of Henry has legal title to 

### a portion of the property judicially determined to be real Relating to Douglas Henry's Title and the Extent of that Title Residue, now owned by Plum Hollow. set so as toprovide 315 acres in the Deed of 1827 and to leave 152.67 acres in the of the latent ambiguities in the Deed of1827. The boundary of the Deed of 1827 must be upon the placement of the 130 perch line and the resolution of the Second Gap in the Deed of 1827 which prevails as a prior conveyance, but which has never been set because Plum Hollow's eastern boundary and the northeastern boundary is dependent grantees is fixed by the location of the Mary Trotter patent boundary. affected by it."). Accordingly, the line between 

### Plum Hollow, Henry and 

### JRF and his marked line of the proper age for its own survey inclosing, but the senior will not be between two adjoining surveys, the junior must always give way. It may have a wellManuf g Co. v. Cross, 18.A. 519, 519 (Pa . l 889) 

### C'It is very clear, that in a contest change, alter, or affect a senior one if they come into conflict. See Tyrone Min. and 

### Thi-s-Court has previously ruled that the Thomas $.tinson patentisjuniorto the Mary Patent and therefore must yield. Accordingly, the lines of a junior survey cannot Deed of 1827 as fixed by this Court on the east and northeast. patent and the Thomas Stinson patent on the north and the boundary established by the53

as the plaintiff obliged to content for, but on the contrary this court was willing, so long calls or surveys . Quinn v. 

### &m:! 1 43 Pa. 337, 341 (1862) ("Not only is there no such rule adjoiners control the limits of his boundary, instead of inconsistent metes and bounds along bis southern boundary, but that line ha s been resolved through other means . The Fleming chain . It appears he might al s o have a common boundary with Plum Hollow ' south of the Plum Hollow Road along the Horn adjacent to 

### JRF and his grantees from the Thus, the record shows that Henry owns everything once owned by Simpson B. Carmack



## . 

## . an adjoiner of the Appleby 

### Tract on the north. See 

### Plai11ti.ffe' Exhibit No. 105, p. 

### 2. boundary. The Survey of 1969 of land now owned by Plum Hollow does show Shade as 58. The Survey of 1965 calls for c~J?leming Land" which is in the JRF grantees' chain of ) title. but does not call for owners of the Appleby Tract as an adjoiner of Sha~e. See



### Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 l'!i p. 4, , The survey does not show any adjoiner on the southern

.. 

## . the Deed of 1865 in the JRF grantee chain through Fleming, See 

### Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. Simpson B . Carmack ls listed as an adjoiner on the northern side of the Horn in 

### JMF. estate as the "residue" of Collin Shade from the Survey of 1965 are made part of Herny' s deed. Cecil Fraker subsequently subdivided this into the tract now owned by Lonnie Henry and a smaller tract to the east south of the Plum Hollow Road, now owned by Collins Shade subdivided the parcel and conveyed the Cecil Fraker Parcel along the

- · northern side of-the Plum Hollow Road in the area of the Hom to Cecil Fraker using the Survey of 

### 1965. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 117, p, 2. The adjoincrs and description of the real Baldwin. 

### Platntiffs' Exhibit No. 49. Henry owns the residue of land that existed after 

## ) \ j

## , ,

54 

### of Fact and Co n c lu s io ns 

### of

Law, p, 

### 63 . JMF o wns an y real estate north . of Pl um Hollow R o ad. S ee P la i n tiffs' P ro p o s ed Findin g Th e dispu te betw ee n He nry , Plum Holl o w and J MF c o nc erns th e real estate sh e still o w n s within the bo u n d s of the Mary Trotter patent. Th e Plaintiffs ackn o w l ed ge that

Relating to J anet M. Fraker's Title and its Extent holdin g titl e throu gh 

### Mary Tro tter , betwe e n th e Survey of 1976 and the M acy Tro tter p at e nt i s r es o l v ed in fav or of thos e Except for th e a dvers e possess i on an d the doctrine of c o nsent able l ines , any i nterferen ce pate nt b o undary is determined, the li nes b e tween the plain tiffs and 

### JRF are determined . 186 5 in c onfo rmity 

### with the M acy Trotter patent. Therefo re, o nce th e Mary Trotter 

# . gran tees com es thro u g h the T h om as Sti nso n patent wh i ch is d esc ribed in the D e ed of Rel ating to J , Ronald Fraker and his Grantees' T itle and th e e x tent of that Title This C o urt ha s previ o usly rul e d that both the sourc e of titl e for 

## JRF and hi s Pl u m H o llo w R o ad. He nry, a s the o wner o f th e re sidue of Lo vada Kerlin, own s title between th e Hom and i s no ev idenc e o f any c o n v eyan ce from th e Lo v ada Kerlin ch ain into the Flemin g c hain, and th e sco pe of le gal ti tle whic h the E s tate of Ze lpha Fl e ming coul d c onv e y . Sin ce th ere Area c l aimed by J RF under th e Fleming Deed and Su rve y of 1 9 7 6 lying o utsid e th e descrip ti o n o f th e De e d o f 1865 which set the true l egal boundary for th e F lemin g Tr ac t T he D efen d an t's e xp ert co ncluded th at Lo v ada Kerlin o wned the Encro a ch me nt a s 18 3 5, to disre gard lin e s a ctually run · on the gr o u n d in o rder to carry a s urvey to the adjoi ners c all ed for . "). 

### )

)

### 55

JMF 1 s total a c r e a g e is 2 1 2 a cres. lin e is the sam e as the mod e m boundary b e tween JMF and Lonnie D. H enry , The re fore, that w a s occupi e d and l ater owne d by Simpson B. Carma c k a . k . a. S . B. Carmack . Th i s less all that land in th e northwest portion o f th e De e d o f 182 7 o f approximately l 03 acres boundary , the actual legal title of JMF is limited 

### to the boundary of the Deed of 1827, this tract remained the s ame until th e Survey of 19 8 4. Thus , d e spite a contrary rec o rd ( e l d er) tho c o mmon sou rce o f title o f 

### JMF, Hern y , and 

### Plum Hollow . The de s cription for 1 82 7 along i t s e a stern boundary and part o f its 3 1 5 acres. This make s D e nnis O'Connor di s tances to the Deed o f 18 2 7 so that this title encomp a ss e s th e p ortio n of the Deed o f 

# . description in the McDowell Mortga g e b ears stri king s i milaritie s i n its courses and T here i s no record evi denc e showing any title into Geor g e Ch es tnu t , but the named mort g agor, an d being part of surv e y in th e name of M ary Tro tter . " convey e d th e s ame to John J am e s , who thi s day hath c o nvey e d the s am e to the within acres . The w h o l e hav i ng be e n conv e y e d by Ge o , Ch e stnut & wife to J ohn Cessna Es quire by d ee d dated 13th Sept. 1859 , wh o by d e ed d ated the 19th of S epte mber 1 859 1 to Th o s . Huston, no w i n the p os se s sion of Simps o n B . 

### Carmack cont ai ning about fifty s ame m o re o r l e ss e xc ep ting the trac t or p art o f a tract convey e d by Geo . Che s tnut & wife Mortga g e 

### whic h is describ e d 

### as " containing b etween tw o an d thre e hundre d acres be th e to F , M . B erks tre ss er dated April 2, 18 6 6. Th i s d ee d is linked t o th e 1865 McDow e ll can be traced by a re gularchain o f c o nveyanc e s b a c k to the d e ed fr om John S , McDowell 

### and c o n cerns th e tract con ve yed in the Baldwin '.D e ed. 

### JMF 1 s re co rd title f o r this tr act JM F 's real estate is flrst des c rib ed a s a re sult of th e unreco rd e d Survey of 1984 • JI

### 56

good faith paid valuable consideration for property without notice of adverse claims." notice of another's claim to the item or of any defects in the seller's ~itle; one who has in A bona fide purchaser is defined as "[o]ne who buys something fol' value without 

### Law.p. 42. estate that came from th e 

### Mary Trotter chain of title, they cannot claim BFP status as purchasers from that chain." Platnttffs 'Proposed Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Proposed Findings of 

### Fdct and Conclusions of 

### Law, p . 76. However, the Plaintiffs' argue the BFP argument is irrelevant "[sjince neither JRF nor his grantees purchased real interest claimed outside of those set forth within the property records." 

### J.R. Fraker 's · any unrecorded interest in land is deemed void as to a BFP without actual notice of any 

### Law, p. 

### 75~84. The Defendants conclude by arguing "[pjeraons who do not properly record their title deeds or any other interest they claim risk the loss of their property , as Janet M Fraker, p. 35; J.R Fraker 's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of breaks in the chain of title to the Plum Hollow, Plaintiffs could have traced their respective deeds back 

### to 1794 and the circumstantial evidence deduced by the Plaintiffs is insufficient. See Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of Defendant All Defendants argue they are bona fide purchasers for value because of the

Defendants are not Bona Fide Purchasers negotiate a- mutually agreeable line between the parties. JMF's legal title: The Court will-allow an opportunity for Plum Hollow and JMF to The Court takes the Plaintiffs' suggestion-and holds that this is the extent of l 

### )

### 5 7

"21 P.S . § 351 enti tl e d, "Fail ure to record c onv e yance" provides A ll deed s , c o nveyan ces , contracts , and o th er i n stru men t s o fwri tl n g w here ln i t shall b e the Inte ntion o f the parties e xecutin g the sam e to gran t, bargai n , sell, an d conv e y an y lands, tenements, or heredi tamen t s situate In thi s Commonwealth , upo n bei ng acknow l edg e d b y th e p arti es e x ec uting the s ame o r pro v ed In th e manner prov i ded b y the laws o fthis Commonw ealth, shall b e re cord e d in the o f

fi c e for tho re co rdin g o f deeds In the co u nty wh ere su c h lands , te n e ment s, an d h eredltaments are s itu ate . Every s u ch deed, co n veyance , contract, o r oth er Ins tru m ent ofwr ! tln g whic h shall n o t b e ac kn o wledged or prov ed an d reco rded, as afore s ai d , sh all b e ad jud ged fraudulent and vo i d as to any s ub sequ e nt b ona fid e purchaser or m ortga g ee or ho l der of any j u d gme n t, duly entered i n the p r otho n otary's office o f the county In which th e l an d s , ten e m e nts , o r h ereditamen t s are situate , witho u t ac tual or c onstru c tiv e notice u nless s u c h deed , c onv e y ance , contract, or I nstrum e nt of writin g sh all b e rec ord e d, a s aforesaid , b efo re the reco rdi n g o f the d ee d or co n v e yanc e o r the entry o f th ejudgme n t under w hich such subsequ e nt purc ha ser, mo rtga g e e , o r judgmen t c redi tor s h all c l aim . N othi ng co nt ain e d i n thi s ac t sh all be constru e d to repe al o r m odi fy an y law providin g for the lie n o f purch a se money mortga g es . l e Se ction 44 4 en title d, "A ll de e ds m a d e in tho state to be ackn ow l edged an d re c o rd ed wi thi n ninety day s " provid e s, Aii d e ed s and c onv e y an c es, wh i ch, from and after the pa s sa ge o f thJs ac t; s h all b e made and ex e c ute d Within thi s co mmo n weal th of 

### or co n cerni ng any lands , ten e me nts or h eredi tame nts i n th i s commo n w e al th , or whereb y th e titl e to th e sam e m ay b e In an y way affe cte d In l aw or e qu i ty , s h all b e acknowl e d g ed by th e granter, or granters , b arge in or or bargai ner s , o r p roved b y on e o r mo re of the sub s c ribing w i tn ess e s th ereto , before one of thej udg es o f the s upreme c ourt, o r b efo re o n e of the J udg e s of the court of commo n pl eas , o r re c o rder of d eed s , protho n ot ary , or c l ork o f any court o f record, Justice of the p e ace , or notary publi c of th e c ounty where in said c o n veye d l an ds H o, and shall b e re c orded i n th e offi ce f o r the re c ording of deeds w here su c h lands, te n ement s o r h eredlt aments are l ying and being , wi thi n ni n ety d ay:i after tho exe c ution of s uch deeds o r conve y an ce , and e v ery su ch d eed and co nve y ance that sh all at any ti m e after the p a ssa g e of thi s act be made and exec u ted i n thi s commonwealth , an d whi c h shall not b e proved and re c orde d as afore s ai d , s h all b e ad

j udge d fraudu lent and void . against any s ub s e quent purc ha ser o r m o rt g a g e e fo r a valid c o nsider ati on, o r any c redi to r of the gr an ter o r b erg ai nc r In sai d d eed o f c o n v ey ance, an d all d e eds or con v eyanc es th at m ay have b e e n m ade and exe c u ted prior to the pas s ag e of thi s ac t , h av i n g b ee n du ly proved and ackn owl e d ge d as n o w directed b y l aw , w h ic h s hall n ot b e rec o rded In th e o ffic e for re cordin g o f dee ds in th e co u nty where sai d len ds an d te n e ment s and heredltarnen t s are ty i ng and b ei n g , wi thin n in ety day s after th e d ate o f the passage of this ac t, s hall be aqjudged fr audu l en t and voi d a s to any sub se quen t purch a ser for a val id c o nsideration , or mortgagee, 0 1 • credito r of th e gr an ter , or b ar g alnor th ere in. Additionall y , a bon a fide p urchaser must also act in good faith. P offenberger 

## v . purchaser, th e s u bs e qu e nt b uy er mu st be withou t no ti ce o f a prior equitable Interest." ). property, Se e al so In re W agner, 35 3 B.R. I 06 (Bkrtcy. W,D , Pa. 2 0 0 6); Roberts v. Pul's 1 ey, 7 1 8 A .2 d 8 3 7, 84 1 (Pa . Super. 1 99 8) ( "I n ord er to qual ify as a bo n a fid e 

### acqu ire the property without actual or co n structive n o1ice of 

### a prior interest 

### in th e "purchaser " , p. 12 49 , Bla ck ' s Law D i ctionary , 

## ih Ed. , 19 9 9 . The statutory framework for b ona :fide p u rcha s er s i s e st abli s hed in 21 P . S . §§ 35 1 1 5 and 444 16 • To b e 

### · a bona fid e 

### purchaser under § 35 1 , a p urchaser of 

### re al property 

### - must · 

### ) • J58 17 The case involved numerous parties and the procedural history in the case was extensive. Kehoe was one of the partie s involved In the original action who filed an appeal. resulting from a flawed conveyance in 1901. Although the opinion is not clear who Keating/Willing warrant as well. However, there 

### was an error 

### in the chain of title 840. One of the opposing parties, Roberts, was able to trace the chain of title back to the "Keating/Willing Warrant", as the original warrant, was completed. Roberts, 718 A.2d at was a bona fide purchaser even though 

### the landowner's predecessor did not have legal title. 

### In the case. Kehoe 17 owned property that he traced back to 185 4 when the fide purchaser statutes to conclude that a landowner had legal title because the landowner In Roberts, the Superior Court held that a trial court properly applied the bona directly on point. 587, 589 (Pa. 1969). The case of'Roberts v. Pursle )! , 718 A.2d 837, (Pa . Super. 1998) is constructive notice of the de e d. 21 P.S. §357; FirstN~tionttl 

### Bank v. Sherw ood , 879 A.2d 178, 181 (Pa. 2005). "Equity protects innocent purchasers by providing that 

### a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice has a perfect defense in a suite brought by a holder of a prior equitable claim." MacKubbin y. Rosedale Memorial 

### P.mk, 257 A.2d recorded, subsequent purc hasers, mortgagees or creditors are deemed to have notice in whom the title resides. Poffenburger, 776 A.2d at 1042. Once a deed is The statute, which has been In effect since January I, 1926, reflects the purpose o f the recording statutes which is to protect bona fide purchasers and provide the public with other s , and acts in good faith."), - - - -- defined 

### as one who pays valuable consideration. has no notice of outstanding rights of Goldstein. 776 A.2d 1037, 1042 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); See also Camegie NatUl'al Gas C omP.any v, Braddo c ki 597 A.2d 285, 287 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) ("A bona fide purchas er is59 18 The K aiser court held, "'the bona fide purchaser concept applies only to purchasers of legal title." Rob erts, 718 A.2d at 841 (quoting Kaiser, 535 A.2d at 1258) . The Roberts court reasoned, fide purchaser, the sub sequent buyer must be without notice of a prior equitable interest." Commonwealth." The Roberts court there fore concluded, "[ i ]n order to qualify as a bona the bona fide purchaser concept contained withln the recording statute of this the Robe1'ts court noted, "we find the Commonwealth Court's argument inconsistent with granter did not possess legal title," Robe1ts, 535 A.2d at 841. In rejecting this argument fide purchaser concept does not apply to the facts of the present ease because Appellees' Kaiser 

### Energy Inc, 

### v . Commonwealth of Pennsvlvania. Department of Enviro nmental Resource§ , 535 A.2d 1 2 55 (Pa. Commw, 1998) 18 argued unsuccessfully

- that vthe bona applying the Pennsylvania recording statute to the facts of this case." Kehoe, relying both intended to provide the 

### same protections to bona fide purchasers, and in light of the ) fact that the sections must be read to gether, we hold that the tri al court was corre c t in

On appeal the Superior Court held "[bjecause (21 P.S.] sections 351 and 444 are preponderanc e of the evidence," Robet1s, 718 A.2d at 840 . Penns y lvania recording statute, [Kehoe] es t ablished their claim . to title by a 718 A.2d at 840. The trial court still found for Rob erts by writing, "but for the

. 

### . "predecessors ever acquired title to the acreage contained within said Warrant." Robeiis, Kelius' s transferred the property to Roberts. The trial court, found for Roberts by

' concluding that while Kehoe was able 

### to trace the property back to 1854, Roberts was able to trace title back to 1901 and that Roberts was unable to demonstrate that his Keliu s and M ary Ke lius acquired and properly recorded the property. In 1975, the owned the Roberts property between 1901 and 1964 , it is clear that in 1964 Milton S. 

## ) • ti

### 60

that may affect his title by inquiry of persons in possession or others who the purchaser agreement may be found where the subsequent purchaser could have learned of the facts · Fiore, 3 86 A2d 569, 573. (Pa. Super, 1978). Constructive notice of a prior unrecorded Crnwlth, 1991). Notice may be either actual or constructive. Long John Silvers, Inc. v. the property. Carnegie Natural Gas Company v. Braddock, 597 A.2d 285 1 287 (Pa. The burden of proving no notice is on the 

### party asserting the unrecorded rights in of the litigation over the years. · at the heart of this case. Not surprisingly, th~e elements have been the subject of most without either constructive or actual notice of the defect in title, are interrelated and 

### strike The secorid and third elements, the person must have act in good faith and be parties involved, Since there appears to be little dispute about this element, this element is satisfied for all to have purchased their respective properties with good and valuable consideration. The first element is valuable consideration. 

### In the present case all parties appear R~berts, 718 A.2d at 841 (citations omitted). Given that there are three (3) elements, each element shall be taken in turn. If c legal title/ within [Kehoe's] definition, were required for a subsequent purchaser to qualify as a bona fide purchaser, the recording statute would not further its intended goals, For instance , in the typical recording statute situation, a grantor sells land to a grantee who does not record the deed; then, a subsequent buyer purchases the same land from the same granror as the original grantee and this subsequent grantee records his deed before the first grantee. The subsequent grantee does not have 'legal title' within [Kehoe's] definition because at the time the land was sold to him, the grantor did not have legal title to give such a right. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that he does not have 'legal title,' he is a bona fide purchaser if at the time of the sale he was without notice of fill adverse interest and value was given for a purchase of the land. As evidenced here, imposing a · requirement of' legal title 1 to the definition of bona purchaser would nearly render the recording statute useless,



### ) · · , , 

### }61 19 21 P.S. § 357 entitled "Constructive Notice as to Recordatlon" provides The legal effect of the recording of such agreements shall be to give constructive notice to subsequent purchasers, mortgagees, and/or Judgment creditors of the parties to said agreements of the fact of the granting of such rights or privileges and/or of the execution of said releases, and the rights of the subsequent purchasers, mortgagees, and/orjudgment creditors of the parties to said agreements shall be limited thereby with the same force and effect es Jfsald subsequent purchasers, mortgagees, and/or judgment creditors had actually Joined In the execution of the agreement or agreements aforesaid. [i]f the records are not computerized or are riot easily accessible, then the finder of fact may conclude a search of the index is sufficient. 

### If, 

### on the other hand, the records are easily accessible, then a diligent search may require review of these records. 

### We hold that 

### if the fact finder concludes under an objective standard of reasonableness that a diligent search has been made. then the result of that search shall constitute notice. elaborated by writing, longer be considered because of the ease of retrieving computerized information relevant to encumbrances on the property." Sherwood, 817 A.2d at 505, The court further of the property indexes "[wjhet may have been considered a diligent search may no Sherwood, 817 A.2d at 

### 505. The court noted that 'With the advent of the computerization the subsequent purchaser is a factual question to be determined on a case by case basis . determination of whether an incorrectly indexed mortgage provided sufficient notice to constructive notice of a mortgage lien where the mortgage lien was improperly indexed in the Recorder of Deeds office. The court, relying on 21 P . S, § 3'57 19 , held that the The issue in Sherwood was whether a subsequent purchaser of real estate had according to the amount of prior records for the property that must be examined."). (Pa. Super. 2003); See also Hermansen, p. 6w20 C'The depth of research is measured at the time of the search." First Citizens National Bank v, She1'Wood~ 817 A.2d 501, 502 question · of diligence is a factual one to · be determined by the accessibility of the records 1951). "Proper notice requires a diligent search on the part of the purchaser, and that the reasonably believes know such facts. Overly v. HiXBon, 82 A.2d 

### 573, 575 (Pa. Super. 

### ) ' J

### 62

Sherwood, 817 A.2d at 505; See also Hermansen, 6~20 ("The depth of'research is measured according to the amount of prior records for the property that must be examined."). Defendant J , R, Fraker argues, "[t]he main purpose-if not the sole purpose-of the recording statutes is to provide notice to all persons purchasing real estate or extending mortgage loans of the existence of all property interests affecting the real estate involved in the purchase or use 

### O as collateral for a loan." J. 

### R. Fraker 's 

### Propose Findings ofFacr and Conclusions of Law, p. 75-76. The Courtagrees with this statement. However, the Court disagrees that the Defendants did not have notice. As the case law indicates, the extent of the search required to be a BFP is a matter of degree. As the Plaintiffs correctly point out, "[ajlthough JRF claims that he was represented by an unnamed attorney, we do not know the scope of the search, the extent of the attorney certification or what qualifications were made to any opinion of title," 

### Plaintiffs' Rebuttal to J.R. Fraker 

### 's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 

### p. 16. Defendant JRF argues, "these parties: (1) derived theirtitle deeds from different granters; and, (2) the title deed of record held by each party very specifically describes the property conveyed to them, including the specific acreage they were to receive; and, (3) at the TIME each party acquired their property an examination of the deed records would NOT have disclosed any ownership interest (or 'overlap') by an adjoining owner." J. 

### R. Fraker 's Proposed Findings of Facr and Conclusions of

Law. p. 82 (emphasis supplied). The Court is not in a position to speculate about the extent of a title search that was done years ago, At the very least, as the Court has already concluded, sufficient 

# \ ' 

# "63

th e el eme nt s . . C om1 e aut L ake, 

### 66 A . 2 d at 82 9. 19 96 ). The burden i s o n th e pe rs o n a s s ertin g a dvers e possessi o n to e s tab li sh eac h o ne o f the l and fo l' tw e nty - o n e ( 2 1) ye ar s . Moore v. Duran, 6 87 A. 2 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 8 (Pa. Su p er, pro ve ac tu al, continuous , e xc l u s ive , visi b le, no t ori o us , dis ti n ct and ho s ti l e p os s ession of T h e el e ments fo r a d v er se p o s s essio n hav e b ee n well estab li sh ed

- a c l aim an t mu s t ti tl e ." ~ pos sess io n "e xti nguishes all prio r claims, includin g thos e as serted und er c olo r of p aper 6 71, 678 ( Pa. Super. 1995) . St ated another w ay , a party wh o s uc cess full y ass ert s a dver se market able titl e , wi th the atte nd ant ri g ht o f p os s es si o n. " 

### f l auoh ak y . Boli n g , 6 5 3 A,2 d 

## . . po ssess ion fo r the pre s c ribed p eriod o f ti m e, the adv ers e posses s or gain s an " ab s ol u te , p oss es sion ." H ermanse n , 4 ~20 . If a party is abl e to satis fy the requi rem e nts of adv ers e p o s s es s io n "was to c lari fy ('quief ) uncert ain ti tle rath er th an to serv e a s a re ward fo r Robwood Lodge t 713 A. 2 d 10 9, 11 2 (P a . Sup er. 1 9 98). Th e ori gi nal purpos e of ad verse Adverse possession i s defin e d as "dominion over th e prop erty," Brid e v, Ad verse Posses§io.t\ Def e ndants argument rel atin g to B F P must fail. . . defendants c onducted a thoro ugh ti tle s e arch , th e y would hav e fo un d the mi s takes. Further, it is the Defendants a s the party ass erting the unrec o rd e d ri g h ts ln the p r operty> who have the burd e n of establish ing th e ir unrecorded righ ts. A c co rdin g ly, th e pro perty was deri v ed fro m the M ary Trotter patent. The simple fact rem ai n s that if th e derived title deeds from different g ranters is unpersuasive b e cause all ' of his claimed 

### p ro viding constructive notic e to the D e fendants. Defendant 

### J RF's argu m e nt th at he circumstantial evidence existe d to explain the breaks in the ch ains of title thereb y r · •



### ) )

### 6 4 P e nn sy l v ania j uri spruden ce h as adop ted 'Ha rath er stri c t stand ard for pro vin g adve r se p os s e ss io n of w o odl and . m Sha f fer v. O >To ol e, 96 4 A. 2 d 420, 4 2 4 (Pa . Super . 2 009 ) (qu o tin g R e c .L an d . Corp. v . Hartz fe ld 9 4 7 ;\.2d 771 , 774 ( Pa. Sup er. 20 08). Th e s tri ct st an dard i s require d bec aus e a d v ers e possessi on i s an " 'extra o rdi n ary d o ctrin e '" and an 1 '' extra ordin aryp ri vileg e. "' R ecreati on Lan d C o rp oration v, Hartzfeld, 9 4 7 A.2 d 771, 7 74 (P a, Sup er, 2 007 ) (quo ti n g F lannery 

### v. Stlllll.12 , 78 6 A.2d 2 5 5 , 2 5 8 (Pa . Su p er. 2 0 01) ). Ea ch ad ver se posse s sion c l aim is a fa ct s pecific i nquiry. Brid e y. R o b woo d · Lod ge, 713

. A.2 d 109 , 11 2 (P a. Su p er. 1 9 9 8) . · N iles v. F all Cree k Hu nti n g C lub. In c ., 545 A,2d 926, 929 ( Pa. S up er . 1988) i s d irec tl y on p oin t and pr ovi des an exce llent disc uss i o n of the di ffere n ces betw ee n ad vers e poss essi o n an d th e d oc tri n e o f c o nsen t able line s ; a s imil ar yet dis tinct c o nc ep t to adv erse p os session. In the c ase, Fall Creek Hunting Club acqu ire d app roxi m ate ly 1, 560 acre s o f unimpro ve d w o o dl ands . Th e d e ed t o Fall Cree k p ro v i d e d th at th e western b ou nd ary wa s de fi ne d as " th e line divi di n g the To w n s hips o f Lib erty an d Morri s . " N il e s, 54 5 A.2 d at 928 . Thi s d ee d w a s exec uted 

### in 194 0 . Nil es o wned th e p r operty to the west o f the F all Creek p ro perty . Niles tr aced th e c hain o f ti tle b ack to 19 52 when th ere wa s . a surv ey d o ne . N il es l earn e d th at b e ginning in 1952 , th ere w ere c onc erns with th e e xact l o c ati o n of th e b oun dary lin e s epar ati n g th e Fall Cree k an d N il e s pro p erties. To sep ar ate th e pro p erties ) a s in g le strand of wire wa s plac e d betw ee n th e p ro p erties and n o tre sp ass in g sig n s we re pl ac ed. Nil es th e n used h i s p o rti o n o f th e pro perty f o r timb ering . In 198 2 , F all C ree k co mmi ssio n e d its o wn surv e yor w ho co n clud e d that th e 19 5 2 s urv ey w a s in corre c t and th e corre c t line was 700 fe et to th e west of th e 1952 surv ey. F all Creek

### 65 20 It must be noted that the Superior Court reversed the trial court on the basis of other errors the trial court commltted such as a evidentiary rulings and Jury Instructions. The court concluded, "ft]hls Is a dlftfoult case. Whether Fall Creek's record title to the disputed land must yield to Niles because ofa boundary fixed by consentable line is a closequestion, Because the jury's verdlct may have been influenced by misleading instructions on adverse possession and erroneous evidentlary l'Ulings, a new trial is required." Niles. 545 A.2d at 934. · · property may be established in connection with the maintenance of a residence, by Le'Daerda. Inc. v. Davis, 360 A.2d 209, 214 (Pa. Super. 1976). "Actual possession of and proof of constructive possession under the guise of color of title is insufficient. 

### !Im The first element, actual possession> is as it states=-actual possession is required Niles, 545 A.2d at 931. The writer shall take each element for adverse possession in tum. the court noted that "it was not essential an express agreement to recognize the line." language was subsequently incorporated into the later deeds . The court held that this language, if believed by the jury would become a binding, consentable 

## Une2°. In ruling which is verbally agreeable to the adjacent landowners." Niles, 545 A.2d at 931. This boundary was uncertain, and, therefore the parties included the language "the location of The court noted that when the 1952 survey was done, the exact location of the western possession." Niles, 545 A.2d at 930. A party may prevail under either theory. 

### ML at 931. noted, "emerged as a separate and distinct theory from that of traditional adverse The Niles court then discussed the doctrine of consentable lines, which, the court The land had been partially enclosed by a single strand of'wire which had broken and fallen to the ground in several places. The evidence was insufficient to show an lnclosure [sio] of a substantial character. There was neither.the establishment of a residence nor cultivation within designated boundaries. Therefore, the evidence failed to satisfy the requisites for proving that Niles had acquired title to the woodland by adverse possession. Id. at 930. action to quiet title and trespass against Fall Creek. The court on appeal held then moved the no trespassing signs to reflect the new survey. Niles then commenced an ' f 

### )

### 66

in terferen ce , beco m e s a c tual p o sses s i o n o f th e wh ole . " .ilL, at 121. "[ t jhe c us to mary use o f the wo odl an d , in c onn e c ti on wi th suc h a p ossess i o n, within th e co nstructi ve p o ss e s s i o n of s uch w oo dland."). Th e Rittenhous e co urt fu rther e xplai n e d , di s s eiso r, as farmers ge nerally use wo o dland adj o ining to their farms, i s actu al and n o t without re siden ce ; and whore ei ther thes e is , the us e of adjoining woodland by the p o s sess i o n may b e b y res id e n ce wi th o ut c ultivation, orby encl os ure and cul tiv ation e stablis he d b y ere ctin g a residence wh~ ~· e th ere is a clear desi g natio n o f th e boundari es of th e l an d s urrounding s u ch re sid e nc e. "); Rittenh o u se, 3 7 Pa. at 117 ("That ac tual l and -o f which the w oo dland i s a part w ithou t ere cti ng a re s i den c e; o r p os se ss i o n may be 828 ("A c tual p o ssess io n may thus b e es tablished by encl osi n g and cu ltiv atin g th e tr ac t of ere cti n g a resid e nce or by e nclosing and cultiv ating th e property."); Moore, 687 A.2d at th e di s pu te d p arce l is und e v e lop e d woodland, actual p o ssessi o n is establish e d by e ither 1889) ; S ee also B rid e)!, R o bwood 

### La gge, 713 A. 2 d 109 , 112 (P a . Sup er. 1 9 98) (' 1 Since or the p art o f th e woo dl an ds that is c ulti v ated. O le win e v . M ess more, 18 

### A. 4 95, 4 9 6 (P a . re quire men t b y makin g ordi n ary us e of the w oodl ands in c o nne c tion wi th th e i r re s id e n ce part o f the tr act of land t o which th e wo o dl and bel o n gs . A pro p erty o wner can sati s fy thi s person must establish actual possession of the w o odland by re sidenc e o r cu l ti v ation of a of the property are n o t the ac tual po s sess ion required."). In "d e aling with a woodl and, a to se at it for re s iden ce and c ultiv ati o n or o ther perman e nt u se co nsi s te nt with th e nature 

### R. R. C o. , 1 52 A. 68 2 , 684 ( Pa. 1 93 0) (" te mpor ary a cts on th e l an d, without an inte nti o n an d pay in g p rop erty taxe s ." Moo re , 687 A.2d at 828 ; S e e al so P arks y . Pennsylvani a culti v atio n of th e l an d, by [e'[nc lo sure o f th e land, or by m aki ng i mp r oveme nt s t o the land \\

### 67 Q . B e fore we move on, who was in a ctual ph y sic al p o ss e s s i o n o f the Dillman property wh e n this action was filed b y the plaintiffs in 20 09 ? A . Dillm an was In actu al physi c al p o ss ess ion o f whatev er i s in s ide th e M ary Trotter b o undary 

### in my opinion . H e oc c upied-s-it' s my understandin g he o ccupied th e h o us e and so he wa s als o i n ph y sical p o sses s ion of that house, but at th e ti m e h e purchas e d [it ] I understand th e title was 

### still in som e one through Mary Trotter b e cause the house w as o n the property that was conve yed to him by Fraker. The h ous e is on that property, 

### Q . Well, let me ask you this. did th e hunting club ever down and p l o w out D illman ts driv e way? A. No th ey didn' t. o wn ed b y Defendants L any J . and Tina M . Dillman . N .T . M ay 19 1 20 11, p. 1

- 17 . Th e following e x change between Attorne y Cramer an d Allen 

### H e nry is instrumen t al : for the land that has been improv e d. More specifically, Attorney Cr amer deduced testim o n y that 

### Plum Holl o w never pl o wed o r put shale down o n a road purp o rte dly The Court agre e s with the Defendants that a dverse po ssession has been sati sfie d .I 

# I I suffic ie nt where the use(s) i s "e x te nsive and appare nt as wh ere s ys tematic all y c o nducte d for comm ercial purposes!' Sev en SprJngs; 344 A.2d at 645. purposes such as hunting and fishing does not c o ns titute actual p o ssession, It m ay be Bride. 713 A. 2d at 112. It must b e n o ted th at althou g h u s in g a land for rec reati o nal pJantlng s ap lin gs man y year s a g o was insufficient to demon s trate a c tu al p os session . " sub s tanti al" and the fence must " d e fine and e nclose th e ac re age to w hloh po ~s e ss ion is a s serted." Seven Springs. 344 A.2d at 644 ~ 45 . Likewis e in Bri de, th . e court h e ld that using the prop erty sporadically for hu ntin g , picking berries , rem oving timb er and Sprin gs , c o urt noted that a fence to s atisfy the requirements o f a ctu al p o ss e ssi o n must b e facilitate the timbering d i d not satisfy the actual possession requ irement. The Se ve n H o w e ver in ~ev e n Springs F arm . Inc. v. 

### Ring, 344 A .2d 6 41 ( Pa . Super . 1975) the c o urt h e ld that timb ering from an unenclosed w oo dl and and cons tru cting ro a d s to ' f'

### 68

road wi th a d o ubl e yellow line d o wn the middle and a m ob ile h om e in th e fro n t. Th ere is al so a red sh e d o ff on th e right sid e o f th e picture. All structures- appear to be w e ll h o me . . The Am erican fl ag is not t attered or faded in any w ay. E x hibit I-6 depic ts a state Ame ri can fla g fl yi ng from the g ar age and there i s a tr amp o line in the bac ky ard o f th e o f w hi c h app e ars to b e a h o m e and th e other ap p ears to be a g ara g e . Th ere is an . m aintaine d. Exhibit I -5 depicts a grave l ro ad lea d ing up to two ( ~ ) larg e structu res, one . Ram s e y" o n the m ailb ox . Bo th th e mailbox and the m ai lbox p os t appear t o b e 

### well E x hib it I-4 shows a grav el road and i n the ce nter there i s a mailb o x with the nam e ''D , three (3) vehicl e s parked in fro nt o f th e ho me and anoth er large r structure on the right si de of th e ph o tograph. Again , all stru c tures 

## and vehicles appear to b e we ll mai ntained . home th at w as o n th e ti ght s id e of the photo graph in I- 2 i s no w in th e c en ter. Th ere are bears fro m ru mma gin g throu gh the trash . Th ere is a w ood ed area be h in d the h o m e and structure s . All s tructu res app ear to be well m ai ntained and th e grass is n e atly trimmed . ) Ex hibit 1 " 3 is a picture th at ap pears to be take n imme di atel y a dj ace ntto Exhibi t I -2 as . the

o n e o f whi ch l oo ks like a st or age shed and a s e cure pla c e to put o ut tr a sh s o as t o prev e n t ' a home o n the rig ht sid e of th e picture . There are two ( 2) small structu re s in th e picture specifically , E x hibit I

- 2 sho w s a gravel r oad in th e middl e of the phot ograph and th ere i s .Attorney Cr amer in tro duced s e v er al ph o tographs o f th e prop erty allegedly owned by D efe ndan t s Dillman , 

### Ram sey an d Mill er . See Exhibits 

### I

- 2 through I-9. Mo re Q, Did the hunting club ever down and put shale on the Di ll m an 's driveway 

### as d epicted on 

### E x hibit I

- 17 A. N o they didn't. Q. And th e hunting club n e ver maintained any portion of D i l l man's front yard, did it? 

### A. No th e y didn' t 

### N.T. May 19, 2 011,p . 116 . 

### )

### I 69 m ai n tai ned . B x h ib it l-? depi c ts several ho m es o n th e right sid e o f th e p hoto graph an d a ro a d runni n g' p arall e l to the h o m e s o n th e l eft s i de of the photo gr aph . All of th e yards are ne atly trimme d and th ere is a sig n i n th e fron t yard o f o n e o f the h o mes th at say " M ob il e H ome fo r Re nt" . Th e sign and all h o mes ap p e ar to be well maintained. Ex hibit I-8 d epi cts s ev er al m o bil e hom e s w ith n e atl y gro om e d yard s . Ex hibit I H 9 depic ts a m o bile ho me and s ingl e famil y h o m e on th e pro perty . Acc o rdingly, th e Co urt beli e v es that the D efe n dants h av e s ati sfi ed th e ac tu al pos s essi o n el e ment fo r th os e areas th at are 

### Impr ov ed, JRF li kew i s e tes ti fi e d ab o ut hi s u se ac tu al u se of th e l an d. M o re sp e c ifi c all y , JRF ex pl ain e d ho w h e w orke d with his s o n to s ub div id e th e lan d th at h e bough t in 197 6 . N.T. J u l y 29 1 2 011 , p. 1 4 . J RF al so tes tifi e d th at h e c l e are d brush away fro m th e p ro p erty an d timbered o n th e p roperty so th at th e prop erty co uld b e markete d an d s ol d. N. T . Jul y 29 , 2 011, p. 15. JRF fu rth er te stifie d th at 

### he put " For Sale" s i gns up on th e parce ls of land that he w as atte mptin g to s e ll . N.T. Jul y 29, 2 011 , p . 1 5 . J RF al s o ren ted mo bil e ho mes to p eo p le o n th e pr o p erty , N. T . July 29, 2011, p . 16. Al thoug h J RF n ev er per s o nall y lived i n the ho mes, B o nn i e Mill er res i ded in th e trail er c o ntinu o usl y . N . T . Jul y 2 9, 2 0 1 1, p. 3 7 , A g ain , the C o urt i s c onv in c e d th at Defendan t 

### JRF h as sati s fi e d his burd e n of dem o n s tr atin g a ctual p oss ession fo r the s e areas . However, th e ques tion re m ain s ab o ut the un e n c l os e d woo dl and s . It is not cl ear th at th e De fe n dan ts h ave sati sfie d thi s e l eme nt fro m the ev i d e nc e deduced re g ardin g th e wo o dlands p o rtio n o ft

be land they occ u py. Ritte nh o u se cas e wo ul d all ow fo r s ati s fac tio n o f thi s e l em e nt b y proof of re s i de nce an d use of the woo dlan d . There is no eviden c e that th e D e fen d an t s e ve r attemp te d to defi n e and e n c l os e th e ac reage t o w hich pos s essi on i s 

### esserted , See Se ye ? Sp ri ng s. Th e C ourt n otes that th ere appears to be li ttl e 

### )

) )7 0

at 10 3 4 ~ Inn Le D a erd a In c . , 3 6 0 A. 2 d at 2 14

- 215; But s ee P l au c h ak , 6 5 3 A.2d at 67 6 i n vo l ve d a di s pu te o v er th e l ocati o n o f a fence or o th er b o und ary , S e e S c himp , 659 A.2 d M o s t of th e cases rea d by the C ourt di s cus s ing th e d oc trin e o f con s e nt abl e li n es parol evi de n ce . P lau c hak , 653 A. 2 d at 6 7 5. wi thin th e p u rv i ew of the S tatute o f' L i mi tati o n s and) thus, mu st be d e mons trated thr o ugh re so lv e l an d di sp utes . P l au ch ak , 6 53 A . 2 d at 6 76. Th e d oc trine is n o t a c o nvey an ce c o ns en tab le lin e is a rule of rep ose fo r th e pu rpo se of quieti n g titl e and d is co ur a gi ng confu si n g and vexati o u s l i tigation . ") . No t surpri s in g l y co urts favor thi s d octrine to 

### S ee al so 

### P l au chak v ; 

### Boling, 653 A.2d 6 7 1 , 67 5 

### (P a . Sup e r . 19 9 5 ) ( u T h e d octrine o f reso l v e th e ir diff

ere n c es p ea ceful l y i n reco gni tion of aban donme n t o f th eir ri g h ts . I d. ; · A. 2 d at 2 15. Th e d oc trine was cre ate d to all o w th e p arties to 

### a b o u n dary di spute, t o c ompro mi se as t o th e 

### boundary using the principl e s of esto p p e l . 

### Inn L e ' P aerd a lnc . , 360 di s tinct theo ry from that o f traditional adver s e p oss e s si o n . " ) , U nd er the d octri n e of co nsent abl e lines , adjo i nin g landowne r s m ay re ach a (P a . Sup er . l 98 8) ( " the d oc trin e of c o nsentab l e lin e [ s] has emerg e d as a sep ar ate and P lauchaky . Bo ling ~ 653 A2d 671 , 67 5 (P a . Sup er . 199 5 ); P1 o ttv. C o l e, 5 47 A.2 d 1 2 16 d is coura g in g c onfusing and vexatious liti gation . " Schimp, 65 9 A. 2 d at 1 034; Se e 

### als o co nsent ab l e l i nes w hich "i s a rul e of repos e fo r the purpose o f quie tin g title an d · A si milar, y e t distinctly related topi c to a dverse pos se ssi o n is the d oc tri ne o f ~ ' ' i D octri ne of Co ns e nt ab l e Li n e s agree me nt regar din g th e exa c t . p l aceme nt of the b o u n d ary lines. di s pute regarding the remai n ing elements fu r the improved areas p re s e n tl y o cc upi e d by the D efe nd ants . A cc ordi ng ly , the C ou rt wi ll all o w th e parti es 

### an op portunity to reach 

### an 

# /I 

## I 71 consent of b o th p arti e s to that line and the gi vi ng up of th e ir resp ec ti ve cl ai ms w hi c h are "es tablis hme nt o f a li ne in compr omis e of the disp ute ". Id. Lastly the re mu st be mthe comm o n boundary line." Inn Le'Daerda Inc., 3 6 0 A.2d 

### at 2 1 5. Se co n d there mu st b e an element s must 

### be satisfied. Fi r st, there must be 

### a "dispute with re gard to the loc atio n of a The Court will fir s t d isc us s the dispute and compromis e m e tho d . Fo r the Court to find that this doctrin e is appli c abl e under the dispute and compromi se me thod, three ( 3) Jedlicka v. Clemmer , 677 A.2d 1232, 1 235 (Pa. Super. 1995 ). 1034. Und er eith er theory it i s n o t necessary that th e boundary li ne be s ubs tantial . Bro a dly speaking , there are two (2) ways to pr~v e the do ctrin e-firs t , by dis p ute and compromi se , and

, secondly b y reco g nition and a cqui e sc en ce. Schi mp , 659 A . 2d at e s tabli s h a boundary lin e ) . A dd itionall y, there i s no requi re me nt

_that th e acti vi ties b e conducted on the entire property for a party toprevail. furrg, 68 7 A.2d at 84 9 . Sorg y, Cunnin g h am , 687 A . 2d 846, 849 ( Pa. Super . 1997) ( ro w o f pin e 'tre e s s u fficien t to 

### It cannot be disputed that occupation up to 

### a fence on each sid e b y 

### a p arty or tw o parties for more than twenty-one y e ars, e ach party cl aiming th e land on his side as his 0W11, gi v es to each an incontestable right up to th e fenc e, an d equally whether the fence i ~ precisely on the right line or not . Our courts h av e alw ay s favore d the s ettl e m e nt of di sp utes of thi s character by rec ognizin g consent ab le li nes established by the parties themselves, and witho u t re g ard 

### to whether th e lin e agreed upon conforms tothe ex act c o u r ses , distances and boun d s o f the ori g in al surv e ys. . 

### Plott. 5 47 A.2d at 1221 (quoting Dimura Y : William§, 286 A. 2 d 3 70 (Pa. 1972)); Se e also



# . supplied) . More s peci fi cally, 

### "specifically" c on se nt to the location of th e lin e . Plott, 547 A.2d at 12 2 1 ( wi;,h a sis in half of 

### a double frame house). However, forthe doctrine to apply, th e parties n ee d not v. Cole, 547 A.2d 1 2 16 (Pa . Super . 1988) ( Dispute o ver th e location of a s creeni n g wall (D o c trin e e stab lish e d w hen a ro w o f hed g es w a s in place for twenty -o ne ( 2 1) years); P lott , • A' 

### )[ s] tarting in 1 98 

### L whe n PHHC a c qu ire d its prop erty fr om the Kern s , the H u n ti ng club po ste d i ts p roperty line es sen tially al o n g th e surv e y lin e estab li s h e d b y P .E . Larse n for all parti es, as e v i de nced b y th e b l aze tre e lin e an d o ther m o num e nt s o f record to which Surveyo r E n g l erth tes tifi ed. The fac ts also establ ish ed that bo th parties stay ed on thei r res p ec tive s i d es of thi s lin e , ev en re fusing re qu ests , ea c h to the o th er , to hunt o r p ark on th e other ' s p ro p erty . 

### I" ~ J.R. Fr aker' s Propose d Fi n ding s 

## ? f Fa ct and C on c l us ions of L aw, p. 98 ~ 99, H owev er , th e 

### 1 ~t1 

### (J 

# vr j f

De fen dan t s failed to satis fy their b urde n when they failed to pro duc e an y photog rap h s o r



## .. {lf / (, o ther d ocumentati on t o s upp o rt th i s argumen t. . 

# t._ 1\ 11 ~ 

# ri @ ~ 

# 1 

# ..-:i~ 

# ~J' !?) ,~ ,ftflv ~ 

# 1 1 &:l 

# g jT; • ( ~I ..// 72 

# OM f · "( 

# 1~ ~ ~ yr b o undary . Defendant 

### JRF ar gues, the Doc trin e o f Co n sentabl e Li n es becaus e th e D e fe n d ants have n o t e s tabli sh e d a 

### C o n c l usions of

Law, p . 

### 3 9. Th e Court fi n d s that the D e fe ndants have n ot s ati s fied the ir burde n o f est abli s hin g 

# J b etween JMF and Pl um H o ll ow or Henry , " P laintiffs' 

### Pro pos ed Finding 

### of

F a c t and n o c on tro v ersy as to the lo c ati o n of the li n e e ver exi sted an d there i s b o und ary fe n ce 4 7 o f th e i r b ri e f, "[t ] h ere i s n o co n sen tabl e line b e tw e en 

### J MF and Plum Holl ow be cause b e appli cab le, there must a b oun d ary. As th e Plai ntiffs co rre c tl y point o ut o n P ag e 39 , 

### 1 Bas ed o n the foregoi n g di scu ssion, o ne thing b eco m es c l e ar - fo r th e doctri ne to 360 A. 2 d at 216. a b oundary b y a djoi n ing l and o wn er s .~ : N iles , 545 A.2 d at 9 30 ( g n oting I nn Le' Daerdg, appe ar that for the re qu is i te twen ty - o ne y ears a li ne was re c ognize d an d acqui es c e d i n a s parti es ne ed n o t have sp ec ifically cons en te d to th e li n e but r ather ~ ' [ i Jt mu s t n everthe less The seco nd method i s rec ogni ti o n and ac qu iescen c e. U n like th e first me th o d , the . ·· twenty-o n e ( 2 1) y ears. Sch imp , 659 A. 2d at 10 3 4 . F i nall y, like adver se p ossessi on, the p arty a ss ertin g the d octrine must be in p ossessi on for inconsis tent th erewith?" I d. (qu oti ng Newto n v . Smi th, 4 0 P a . Sup er. 615, 616 (1 9 09) ). 11; . , •

### 73

w h ere i n th e c ourt h eld th at ~ defen d an t bank was an indispen sable p arty 

### to th e ac ti on, H ow e v er, as th e Pl ai ntiffs c o rrec tl y p oint o u t. th e Rams e y m o rt g age i s not a part o f th e Sav ings & L o an A ss n, v . Fre e dman 1 6 1 Pa . D. & C . 2 d487 , 4 9 0 ( Lawrenc e Cty . 1 97 2) R ams e y ' s p ro perty, In su pp o rt o f th i s pro positi o n D efen dan t JRF cites C on c ord L ibert~ l and transfers. D efe nd an t 

### JRF mentio ns th e mo rt g a g e e hol din g a li en up o n D efe nd an t l ocate d ou ts id e th e li ti gation or th eir ri ghts h ave b ee n exti n guished thro u gh voluntary action a s al l o f " indi spe n s i bl e parti es " m e n ti o ned b y th e D efen d an t s e i th er o wn propertie s · 

### 1. D o th e ab se nt parties have a ri g ht o r i n tere st re l ate d to th e clai m? 2 . If 

### s o, what 

### is th e nature o f th e righ t or interest ? 3. I s 

### that right or inte res t esse ntial to th e meri ts of th e issu e? 4 . Canjusti ce be af

fo r d e d without viol atin g du e pro ce s s es ri g h ts of ab se n t p arti es ? T h e C ourt finds that all of th e Indi s pen sable p artie s h ave b een i ncl u ded in thi s 956 (P a . 1 9 81 ) : be wholly inconsiste nt with equity and good conscienc e ." Id. C o urts are gu ided b y four (4) 

### criteri a e s tab li s hed in M e c h gn i csbur g A;teg Sc hool Distri c t v . Klin e, 43 1 A. 2 d 953, af fe ctin g it , or le aving th e c ontrov ersy in su c h a conditi on that a fi nal d etermination m ay is in d isp e ns ab le "when he ha s su c h an intere st th at a final d ecree c ann ot be made witho ut P ark s. In c. v . Phil ad elphia Parking Auth . • 5 2 1 A.2d 

### 71. 7 3 (Pa. C o mm w . 1 98 7) . A patty 

### Fi ndin g s o f F a ct a n d Co nclu s io ns of Law, p . 

### 59; Prop o sed Findi ngs o f Fa ct a n d Conclu s ions of

Law o f

### D efen da nt Ja n et M. Fra ker , p. 32 w33. The failure t~ joi n an indispe ns able party dep riv es th e c o urt of ju risdi cti o n. E- Z indispe ns abl e parti e s h av e not b e en joined in thi s a ction. See 

### J.R . Fra ke r' s P ropose d The Defendants arg u e th at the Plainti ff s ' action mu s t be dismissed bec au se all F ailure to Join Indisp e nsib l e P artie s ... 

## , '

# \

. 

# :,1· .

74 Accordingly, the following is entered: in recent memory. did not close, This case has been the largest and most comprehensive case for this Court time to perform a detailed title search and realized that the original Mary Trotter patent This entire case could have been resolved many years ago had someone taken the One of the most important reasons is to isolate omissions in boundary information., There are an untold number of records that, as a result ofrecopying copies have omitted important boundary Informatlon, .. . A second reason a surveyor should research past records is to uncover errors in subsequent surveys. Third, when omissions and errors are· found, in-depth research is frequently necessary to correct them .... In addition to omissions, en-ors, and corrections, 

### the sequence of conveyancing 

### must sometimes be determined, Hermansen, p. 6~20 to 6~21. four (4) major reasons for a title search: value o f a proper title search cannot be underscored. As stated by Hermansen, there are This case demonstrates the importance of conducting a thorough title search. The Conclusion Ne):, 917 A.2d 863, 866 (Pa. Super . 200?), record. Accordingly, this Court is prohibited from considering this mortgage. See~