Court Opinion

ID: 9701264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:13:23.580956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:21.858778
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. As the majority correctly notes, “the focal question ... was whether Appellants’ acquiescence in and approval of the work on the road constituted ‘consent’ within the meaning of Section 1961.” Majority opinion at 499. The majority then goes on to conclude that “[t]he trial court properly determined that ‘consent’ as set forth in Section 1961 should be liberally construed,” and that Appellants’ submission in and approval of the work on the road constituted “consent.”
Contrary to the conclusion reached by the majority, statutory authority provides that courts must give narrow construction to all acts of the legislature adopted prior to May 28,1937 which are in derogation of common law. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1928(b)(8); Jenkins v. Jenkins, 246 Pa.Superior Ct. 455, 371 A.2d 925 (1977). For instance, Section 1928(b)(8) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, specifically provides:
(b) All provisions of a statute of the classes hereafter enumerated shall be strictly construed:
(8) Provisions enacted finally prior to September 1, 1937 which are in derogation of the common law.
1 Pa.C.S. § 1928(b)(8).
Section 1961 was enacted in 1889 and is clearly in derogation of the common law. For instance, our supreme court in Rahn v. Hess, 378 Pa. 264, 106 A.2d 461 (1954) explained:
[pjrior to the Act of 1889 no limitation of time was imposed on the public for perfecting the dedication by their acceptance. The Act fixed a time limit within which an acceptance by the public must take place. If the offer was not so accepted within twenty-one years after the dedication, the public’s right to accept was foreclosed.
*502Id. at 268,106 A.2d at 463 (citations omitted). Thus, a narrow construction of the statute in general, and of the term “consent” in specific, is warranted. Pursuant to this standard, the majority should have held that Appellants had to give their affirmative consent to the building of the road with full knowledge that the road belonged to Appellants.1 Mere acquiescence and approval in the work on the road without Appellants’ knowledge of the road’s ownership is plainly insufficient to constitute “consent” under a narrow construction of the statute and term. To hold otherwise violates the principles of statutory construction.
With respect to the majority’s conclusion that Appellants were unreasonable in relying on representations by various individuals, a brief recitation of pertinent facts is in order. In March 1990, Louis John Trapizona and Michael Allen Trapizona acquired the land behind the subject road. In April 1990, Appellants were contacted by Richard Trapizona, Chief of Police for the Township and Nicholas Veshio, an influential Public Works Supervisor. Both individuals informed the Appellants that the road between their properties was a public right of way. Relying upon this representation, Appellants expressed no opposition to the building of the road if it conformed to applicable and accepted standards. In October 1990, Louis John Trapizona and Michael Allen Trapizona conveyed portions of their land to Richard T. Trapizona. In February of 1991, upset with the progression and manner of the road’s construction, Appellants contacted legal counsel. Legal counsel informed the Appellants that the road was not a public road, but actually belonged to them, because the Township had not accepted dedication of the road within the twenty-one year time period. Before this time, Appellants had no knowledge that they owned the road. After acquiring this information, Appellants immediately voiced their protestations to the Trapizonas, culminating in their filing the instant equity action on March 18, 1991.
*503As the majority correctly recognizes, Appellants’ assent to the building of the road occurred before they ascertained that the road belonged to them. After that time, Appellants undertook immediate and corrective measures to reclaim the road. Pursuant to any reasonable interpretation, Appellants’ actions cannot be deemed dilatory since they immediately exercised their rights once they realized that they owned the road.
The majority specifically relies on Center Township v. Zoning Hearing Board of Center Township, 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 487, 522 A.2d 673 (1987) for the proposition that Appellants’ reliance on various parties’ representations was unreasonable; however, this reliance is misplaced in this case. For instance, the majority notes that because the Center Township supervisor was the seller of the property, his statements could not be imputed to the Township since the supervisor had an apparent self-interest in informing the buyer he could use the property as he desired. While the holding in Center Township may apply to Mr. Trapizona in the instant case, it certainly does not apply to Mr. Veshio, who clearly and indisputably informed the Appellants that the road was a public right-of-way.2 A review of the record does not reveal any apparent self-interest on the part of Mr. Veshio. In fact, Mr. Veshio was employed by Aleppo Township for thirty-five years in the capacity of, among other things, Public Works Supervisor and Chairman of the Board of the Water Authority-
Moreover, the majority attempts to minimize the significance of Mr. Trapizona’s and Mr. Veshio’s statements by concluding that these statements represented “legal opinions” which neither individual was qualified to render. However, *504the individuals’ statements were not legal opinions, but were presented as statements of fact. The testimony from the hearing conclusively demonstrates that the statements were provided as factual statements. For instance, Mr. Trapizona testified that Appellants’ consent was not needed since it was a public right-of-way. Specifically, Mr. Trapizona testified as follows:
Q. At time of that conversation [February 1990], it didn’t enter your mind to ask for their consent?
A. I wasn’t [sic].
Q. You didn’t think you needed it, did you?
A. It was a right-of-way.
N.T. at 122-123.
With respect to Mr. Veshio, he testified as follows:
Q. Did you tell them [Appellants] that the Trapizona [sic] could use it [road] if they want?
A. Yes.
N.T. at 97.
From a review of the record, there is no evidence that Mr. Trapizona and Mr. Veshio rendered legal opinions with respect to the status of the road. This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that all parties believed that the road was a public right-of-way until February 1991.
Finally, the majority, in footnote two of its opinion, again relying on Center Township, unfairly places the burden on the Appellants with respect to ascertaining the applicable law. Factually, the two situations are different. Center Township involved a buyer who clearly should have familiarized himself with the applicable zoning laws before he purchased the house. The instant case involves the status of a road which all parties believed to have been a public right-of-way. Appellants were not buyers, but were property owners who had lived in their homes for many years without knowledge of Section 1961’s *505effect.3 In the usual course of business, individuals properly and reasonably rely on information supplied by Township officials as to various building requirements and regulations. This court should not lose sight of the fact that Appellants were lay persons and were dealing with a respected Chief of Police of the Township and an influential Public Works Supervisor. To hold Appellants to a heightened standard is unrealistic and inequitable.
In conclusion, if any inference is to be drawn from this court’s holding in Center Township, this court should hold that Mr. Trapizona should have ascertained the status of the road and obtained Appellants’ affirmative consent before he and his family purchased the land.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.

. For this reason, Maust v. Pennsylvania & Maryland State Railway Company, 219 Pa. 568, 69 A. 80 (1908) has no applicability to the present case.

. Mr. Veshio testified as follows:
Q. Mr. Veshio, when you first met the Leiningers and the Pflughs— and you have heard the testimony about the meeting, you and Richard in the early summer, late spring of 1990 — did you inform the Plaintiffs in this case that this was a public right-of-way, the disputed area that is?
A. You said it right, public right-of-way____
Notes of Testimony, December 18, 1991 at 97 (N.T.).

. The Pflughs had acquired title to their property on September 24, 1973. The Leiningers had acquired title to their property on May 29, 1986.