Opinion ID: 176179
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Parties’ Conduct

Text: The parties’ conduct further confirms this conclusion. It has been nearly ten years since the Agreement was executed. Plaintiffs have never before demanded rent from Lamar. Plaintiffs’ claim that their complacence is irrelevant, as it does not alter their status as landowners and their attendant rights to collect rent for the occupancy of their land. We need not address Plaintiffs’ estoppel arguments in this regard. Their behavior between January 1998 and November 2007 “is certainly a convincing demonstration of [their] interpretation of the contract. It is, of course, hornbook law that what the parties do under a contract is highly important in determining the meaning of the agreement 3 In rejecting Plaintiffs’ effort to recast their legal relationship with Lamar as that of landlord-tenant, we similarly reject their argument that the “open term of possession” is a perpetuity disfavored in the law. Under Pennsylvania law, “[a]n express easement is presumptively perpetual in duration, and will be rendered void only if circumstances change to such a degree as to render the easement useless to the grantee.” Kapp v. Norfolk S. Ry Co., 350 F. Supp. 2d 597, 608 (M.D. Pa. 2004) (citing Woodlawn Trs., Inc. v. Michel, 211 A.2d 454, 456 (Pa. 1965)). Also, easements in gross may be assignable if the granting instrument makes them so. See Rusciolelli v. Smith, 171 A.2d 802, 806 (Pa. 1961). The instrument in our case states: “[t]he Grantor does hereby give and grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual easement in gross . . . .” (emphasis added). 8 which they have made.” Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Ellis-Foster Co., 298 F.2d 244, 246 (3d Cir. 1962). 4