Court Opinion

ID: 9949935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 20:14:19.645659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:35.801708
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                              WESTERN DISTRICT

JACK DUNCAN AND JEFFREY DUNCAN,                   : No. 245 WAL 2023
                                                  :
                     Respondents                  :
                                                  : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                                  : from the Order of the Superior Court
              v.                                  :
                                                  :
                                                  :
CHARTIERS NATURE CONSERVANCY,                     :
INC.,                                             :
                                                  :
                     Petitioner                   :

                                         ORDER

PER CURIAM

      AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

      May a trial court decline to apply the presumption of law that one who holds
      title to real estate “possesses” such real estate where the court expressly
      finds that possession of the real estate at issue “was less than clear or
      shared by both parties” and that both competing parties were in possession
      of “at least a portion” of such real property?

      Where the law prescribes how a party “possesses” unenclosed woodland
      property in the context of an action to quiet title, may a trial court expressly
      ignore such legal definition and apply instead only “the common
      understanding” of that word to determine whether the court has the
      obligatory subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance?