Rumsky v. Tate

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Rumsky v. Tate

420 A.2d 673, 278 Pa. Super. 540, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2782

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 20, 1980

DocketNo. 639

StatusPublished

This text of 420 A.2d 673 (Rumsky v. Tate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rumsky v. Tate, 420 A.2d 673, 278 Pa. Super. 540, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2782 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order of the lower court denying appellants’ claim to an 18 acre plot in Clearfield County by adverse possession.

In Smith v. Peterman, 263 Pa.Super. 155, 160-61, 397 A.2d 793, 796 (1978), this court stated:

‘[o]ne who claims title by adverse possession must prove that he had actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct, and hostile possession of the land for twenty-one years. Each of these elements must exist, otherwise the possession will not confer title.’ Inn Le’Daerda, Inc. v. Davis, 241 Pa.Super. 150, 158, 159, 360 A.2d 209, 213 (1976).

Here, the lower court found that appellants did not continuously possess the land for 21 years and that their use of it was not exclusive. The lower court’s findings of fact are supported by the record.

Affirmed.

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