Ocirne., Pet v. New Tees, Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ocirne., Pet v. New Tees, Co.

106 A.3d 677, 630 Pa. 328

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 23, 2014

Docket445 MAL 2014 (Granted)

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.3d 677 (Ocirne., Pet v. New Tees, Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ocirne., Pet v. New Tees, Co., 106 A.3d 677, 630 Pa. 328 (Pa. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues as stated by petitioner are:

(1) Did the Superior Court correctly hold that successive periods of adverse use of a property may not be “tacked” to establish the requisite twenty-one years for a prescriptive easement claim unless the prescriptive easement claim is specifically referred to in the deed between the successive landowners?

(2) Did the trial court misapply Pennsylvania law by requiring Proveo to prove that the prior owner of the Proveo Property “asserted” a prescriptive easement claim to the owners of the New Tees Property, and by failing to recognize that proof of an open, notorious, continuous and uninterrupted use for the prescriptive period, without evidence to explain how it began, raises a presumption that the use is adverse and under a claim of right?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues as stated by petitioner are:

(1) Did the Superior Court correctly hold that successive periods of adverse use of a property may not be “tacked” to establish the requisite twenty-one years for a prescriptive easement claim unless the prescriptive easement claim is specifically referred to in the deed between the successive landowners?

(2) Did the trial court misapply Pennsylvania law by requiring Proveo to prove that the prior owner of the Proveo Property “asserted” a prescriptive easement claim to the owners of the New Tees Property, and by failing to recognize that proof of an open, notorious, continuous and uninterrupted use for the prescriptive period, without evidence to explain how it began, raises a presumption that the use is adverse and under a claim of right?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.3d 677, 630 Pa. 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ocirne-pet-v-new-tees-co-pa-2014.