Myers v. Beam

713 A.2d 61, 551 Pa. 670, 1998 Pa. LEXIS 1008

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY, Chief Justice.

Appellants Jay and Helen Myers sought to acquire title by adverse possession to a strip of land adjoining their property, and the court of common pleas granted their petition. The court found that all elements necessary to establish title by adverse possession were present.

* The Superior Court, however, reversed due to appellants’ attempt to acquire title by seeking a quitclaim deed from appellees’ predecessors in title before the expiration of the statute of limitations for adverse possession. The Superior Court held that the request for a quitclaim deed was an acknowledgement of the superiority of the record owners’ title inconsistent with the requirement that adverse possession must be hostile. Thus the element of hostility is the only element of adverse possession at issue.

Appellant argues that we should follow the reasoning of Judge Tamalia, who dissented from the conclusion of the majority of the Superior Court panel. He cited Burns v. Mitchell, 252 Pa.Super. 257, 381 A.2d 487 (1977), to the effect that even if a trespasser seeks a quitclaim deed from the record owner, such a trespasser is not acknowledging superior title in the record owner, but is merely seeking to improve the marketability of his own title.

Burns, however, is factually distinguishable. The disputed land in Burns adjoined the lots of the two parties, neither of whom held record title. Burns obtained title by adverse possession. She later acquired a quitclaim deed to the disputed land. Burns held that the quitclaim deed only gave Burns record title to property she had already acquired by adverse possession. Under these circumstances, Burns merely improved the marketability of her title after establishing ownership by adverse possession.

In this case, by contrast, appellants sought a quitclaim deed from the record owner; moreover, they did so approximately eight years prior to the running of the statute of limitations for adverse possession. It is therefore apparent that the Burns precept — namely, that it is perfectly consistent to claim title by adverse possession and also seek a quitclaim deed — is inapplicable under the facts of this case.

It is also argued that it is not essential to establish hostility in a claim of adverse possession if all other elements of adverse possession are present. This argument is based on Tioga Coal Co. v. Supermarkets General Corp., 519 Pa. 66, 75, 546 A.2d 1, 5 (1988). Tioga stated that “if the true owner has not ejected the interloper within the time allotted for an action in ejectment, and all other elements of adverse possession have been established, hostility will be implied, regardless of the subjective state of mind of the trespasser.” Id. Appellants argue that if the Tioga rale is applied to this case, where every element of adverse possession, with the sole exception of hostility, is undisputedly present, then title by adverse possession has been properly proved, as hostility-is implied when the other elements are present.

This is a misinterpretation of the holding and rationale of Tioga. The opinion stated that the above holding “is consistent with a requirement that adverse possession be characterized by hostility as well as the other elements of the cause of action.... ” Id., 519 Pa. at 75, 546 A.2d at 5. Tioga manifestly cannot be interpreted as disposing of the requirement of hostility. The record in Tioga was silent as to evidence of hostility.

To interpret and apply the holding of Tioga in this case, it is essential to recognize that the facts of the cases differ materially. The record of Tioga was silent as to hostility; there was no evidence tending to prove or disprove hostility. In those circumstances, the court inferred the existence of hostility. In this case, however, there is evidence tending to disprove the existence of hostility. To rely on Tioga to establish the existence of hostility in this case would not only be an extreme extension of Tioga, but would essentially eliminate hostility as one of the required elements of adverse possession. Such an interpretation is impermissible given the above-quoted statement in Tioga that its holding “is consistent with a requirement that adverse possession be characterized by hostility as well as the other elements of the cause of action.... ” Id., 519 Pa. at 75, 546 A.2d at 5. Here, seeking a quitclaim deed destroyed the element of continuous hostility in the adverse possession of appellants, and Tioga is not capable of being interpreted as supplying that element by implication.

We therefore hold that the Superior Court was correct in reversing the court of common pleas, thereby denying title by adverse possession on account of appellants’ attempt to acquire a quitclaim deed from appellees.

Order of the Superior Court affirmed.

SAYLOR, J., files a dissenting opinion in which CASTILLE and NIGRO, JJ., join.

"[O]ne who claims title by adverse possession must prove actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct and hostile possession of the land for twenty-one years.” Baylor v. Soska, 540 Pa. 435, 438, 658 A.2d 743, 744 (1995).