Court Opinion

ID: 9714501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:39:06.371382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:26.541392
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
concurring:
I concur. “[A] monument, in order to be favored in law over a mentioned course or distance for the purpose of construing an ambiguous description, must ... be a physical thing on the ground and must be mentioned in the deed.” 5 P.L.E., Boundaries § 9 (emphasis added). See also: Matthews v. Bagnik, 157 Pa.Super. 115, 118, 41 A.2d 875, 877 (1945). The tree-fence line upon which appellant’s surveyor relied is not identified as a monument in the deed descriptions. Therefore, it is not entitled to the controlling *85effect which appellant’s surveyor gave to it. The trial court did not err when it accepted appellees’ survey in preference to appellant’s survey.
I agree with and join the majority’s determinations that the trial court did not err in its receipt of or reliance upon the testimony of an unlicensed surveyor. I also agree that there is no basis on which this reviewing court can properly reverse the trial court’s determination that appellants failed to prove title by adverse possession.