J-S39005-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
JACK L. ZAVILLA AND LUCY ZAVILLA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF HUSBAND AND WIFE : PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : : : STEVEN J. GEIBEL AND MARJORIE A. : GEIBEL, HIS WIFE : No. 408 WDA 2024 : Appellants :
Appeal from the Order Entered March 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Civil Division at No(s): 2016-10790
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: December 20, 2024
Appellants, Steven J. Geibel and Marjorie A. Geibel, appeal from the
March 28, 2024 judgment entered in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas
in favor of Appellees, Jack L. Zavilla and Lucy Zavilla, in this property boundary
dispute. After careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are, briefly, as follows. This
matter arises from a dispute between neighbors over ownership of a small
piece of land (“Disputed Property”) in Butler County. Appellants own the land
west of the Disputed Property and Appellees own the land east of the Disputed
Property. Appellants acquired their property in April 2015 and began
removing timber from and farming on the Disputed Property. Appellees then
put “no trespassing” signs on the Disputed Property and claimed ownership of
it. J-S39005-24
On May 30, 2017, Appellees filed a complaint raising claims of
Ejectment, Trespass, and Conversion of Timber, and seeking a Declaratory
Judgment that they owned the Disputed Property. On August 1, 2017,
Appellants filed an answer and asserted a counterclaim of Trespass and for
Quiet Title.
On May 31, 2022, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts, including
numerous exhibits, to the trial court. On August 19, 2022, the court found in
favor of Appellees on their Ejectment and Declaratory Judgment claims, as
well as on Appellants’ Quiet Title and Trespass counterclaims.1
On February 14, 2024, the parties appeared for a bench trial on the
outstanding claims. Prior to testimony, Appellants’ counsel stipulated that,
for purposes of trial, Appellants did not dispute liability. Thus, the only issues
before the trial court were the damages for Trespass and Conversion of
Timber. Following the presentation of testimony, and the court’s consideration
of the exhibits, the court found that Appellees had not provided any admissible
evidence of the value of the trees Appellants removed from the Disputed
Property. Thus, the court awarded no damages on Appellees’ Conversion of
Timber claim. It also found that Appellees had proven that they suffered
____________________________________________
1 Appellants filed an appeal from this order, which this Court quashed as premature given the pendency of Appellees’ Trespass and Conversion of Timber claims. See Zavilla v. Geibel, 305 A.3d 1026 (Pa. Super. 2023) (non- precedential decision).
-2- J-S39005-24
$9,500 in actual damages from Appellants’ trespass2 and, in light of
Appellants’ conduct, also awarded Appellees $9,500 in compensatory
damages. The court then entered judgment in favor of Appellees for $19,000.
This appeal followed. Appellants filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement. In lieu of a Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court directed this Court
to its August 19, 2022 opinion for an explanation of its rulings.
Appellants raise the following three issues on appeal:
1. Whether the lower [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion by determining that [Appellants] failed to meet their burden of proof in stating that a subdivision did not determine property lines and any ownership of the remaining parcel[?]
2. Whether the lower [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion by failing to give weight to [Appellants’] assertion that their chain of title offered a clearer description of the property line to better define the land ownership of interest of each part[y?]
3. Whether the lower [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion by attributing [Appellants’] predecessors’ lack of use of the Disputed Property as evidence that [Appellees] owned the Disputed Property[?]
Appellants’ Brief at 5.
A.
Appellants challenge the trial court’s order granting Appellees’ claims for
Ejectment and Declaratory Judgment. Our standard of review of an ejectment
action is “limited to a determination of whether the [trial court] court ____________________________________________
2 In particular, in 2016, Appellees had paid $7,500 to survey the Disputed Property and received an estimate of not more than $2,000 to replace five iron property line pins removed by Appellants.
-3- J-S39005-24
committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” Roberts v. Estate of
Pursley, 718 A.2d 837, 840 (Pa. Super. 1998). We will not disturb the
decision of the orphans’ court in this context “unless it is unsupported by the
evidence or demonstrably capricious.” Id. Similarly, “[o]ur standard of
review in a declaratory judgment action is limited to determining whether the
trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Erie
Ins. Grp. v. Catania, 95 A.3d 320, 322 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).
B.
In their first issue, Appellants assert that the trial court erred in finding
that they did not meet their burden to prove that Appellees’ subdivision of
their property did not determine the property lines or the ownership of the
Disputed Property. Appellants’ Brief at 10-12.
Where defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful
appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues
waived. Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007)
To properly develop an issue for our review, Appellant bears the burden of
ensuring that his argument section includes citations to pertinent authorities
as well as discussion and analysis of the authorities. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a);
Hardy, 918 A.2d at 771 (“[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments
that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must support the
claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with
citations to legal authorities.”) (citation omitted)).
-4- J-S39005-24
Further, the argument portion of an appellate brief must be developed
with citation to the record. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c). “We shall not develop an
argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour the record to find evidence to
support an argument.” Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super.
2018). To do so would place this Court “in the conflicting roles of advocate
and neutral arbiter.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 782 A.2d 517, 532 (Pa.
2001) (Castille, J., concurring). Therefore, when an appellant fails to develop
his issue in an argument, the issue is waived. Sephakis v. Pa. State Police
Bureau of Records and Id., 214 A.3d 680, 686-87 (Pa. Super. 2019).
Instantly, Appellants have failed to provide any citations to the record
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S39005-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
JACK L. ZAVILLA AND LUCY ZAVILLA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF HUSBAND AND WIFE : PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : : : STEVEN J. GEIBEL AND MARJORIE A. : GEIBEL, HIS WIFE : No. 408 WDA 2024 : Appellants :
Appeal from the Order Entered March 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Civil Division at No(s): 2016-10790
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: December 20, 2024
Appellants, Steven J. Geibel and Marjorie A. Geibel, appeal from the
March 28, 2024 judgment entered in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas
in favor of Appellees, Jack L. Zavilla and Lucy Zavilla, in this property boundary
dispute. After careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are, briefly, as follows. This
matter arises from a dispute between neighbors over ownership of a small
piece of land (“Disputed Property”) in Butler County. Appellants own the land
west of the Disputed Property and Appellees own the land east of the Disputed
Property. Appellants acquired their property in April 2015 and began
removing timber from and farming on the Disputed Property. Appellees then
put “no trespassing” signs on the Disputed Property and claimed ownership of
it. J-S39005-24
On May 30, 2017, Appellees filed a complaint raising claims of
Ejectment, Trespass, and Conversion of Timber, and seeking a Declaratory
Judgment that they owned the Disputed Property. On August 1, 2017,
Appellants filed an answer and asserted a counterclaim of Trespass and for
Quiet Title.
On May 31, 2022, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts, including
numerous exhibits, to the trial court. On August 19, 2022, the court found in
favor of Appellees on their Ejectment and Declaratory Judgment claims, as
well as on Appellants’ Quiet Title and Trespass counterclaims.1
On February 14, 2024, the parties appeared for a bench trial on the
outstanding claims. Prior to testimony, Appellants’ counsel stipulated that,
for purposes of trial, Appellants did not dispute liability. Thus, the only issues
before the trial court were the damages for Trespass and Conversion of
Timber. Following the presentation of testimony, and the court’s consideration
of the exhibits, the court found that Appellees had not provided any admissible
evidence of the value of the trees Appellants removed from the Disputed
Property. Thus, the court awarded no damages on Appellees’ Conversion of
Timber claim. It also found that Appellees had proven that they suffered
____________________________________________
1 Appellants filed an appeal from this order, which this Court quashed as premature given the pendency of Appellees’ Trespass and Conversion of Timber claims. See Zavilla v. Geibel, 305 A.3d 1026 (Pa. Super. 2023) (non- precedential decision).
-2- J-S39005-24
$9,500 in actual damages from Appellants’ trespass2 and, in light of
Appellants’ conduct, also awarded Appellees $9,500 in compensatory
damages. The court then entered judgment in favor of Appellees for $19,000.
This appeal followed. Appellants filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement. In lieu of a Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court directed this Court
to its August 19, 2022 opinion for an explanation of its rulings.
Appellants raise the following three issues on appeal:
1. Whether the lower [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion by determining that [Appellants] failed to meet their burden of proof in stating that a subdivision did not determine property lines and any ownership of the remaining parcel[?]
2. Whether the lower [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion by failing to give weight to [Appellants’] assertion that their chain of title offered a clearer description of the property line to better define the land ownership of interest of each part[y?]
3. Whether the lower [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion by attributing [Appellants’] predecessors’ lack of use of the Disputed Property as evidence that [Appellees] owned the Disputed Property[?]
Appellants’ Brief at 5.
A.
Appellants challenge the trial court’s order granting Appellees’ claims for
Ejectment and Declaratory Judgment. Our standard of review of an ejectment
action is “limited to a determination of whether the [trial court] court ____________________________________________
2 In particular, in 2016, Appellees had paid $7,500 to survey the Disputed Property and received an estimate of not more than $2,000 to replace five iron property line pins removed by Appellants.
-3- J-S39005-24
committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” Roberts v. Estate of
Pursley, 718 A.2d 837, 840 (Pa. Super. 1998). We will not disturb the
decision of the orphans’ court in this context “unless it is unsupported by the
evidence or demonstrably capricious.” Id. Similarly, “[o]ur standard of
review in a declaratory judgment action is limited to determining whether the
trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Erie
Ins. Grp. v. Catania, 95 A.3d 320, 322 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).
B.
In their first issue, Appellants assert that the trial court erred in finding
that they did not meet their burden to prove that Appellees’ subdivision of
their property did not determine the property lines or the ownership of the
Disputed Property. Appellants’ Brief at 10-12.
Where defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful
appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues
waived. Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007)
To properly develop an issue for our review, Appellant bears the burden of
ensuring that his argument section includes citations to pertinent authorities
as well as discussion and analysis of the authorities. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a);
Hardy, 918 A.2d at 771 (“[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments
that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must support the
claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with
citations to legal authorities.”) (citation omitted)).
-4- J-S39005-24
Further, the argument portion of an appellate brief must be developed
with citation to the record. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c). “We shall not develop an
argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour the record to find evidence to
support an argument.” Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super.
2018). To do so would place this Court “in the conflicting roles of advocate
and neutral arbiter.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 782 A.2d 517, 532 (Pa.
2001) (Castille, J., concurring). Therefore, when an appellant fails to develop
his issue in an argument, the issue is waived. Sephakis v. Pa. State Police
Bureau of Records and Id., 214 A.3d 680, 686-87 (Pa. Super. 2019).
Instantly, Appellants have failed to provide any citations to the record
and any legal authority whatsoever in support of this claim. By failing to do
so, Appellants have impeded this Court’s ability to conduct meaningful
appellate review. To undertake review of this issue would require us to scour
the record and craft an argument on Appellants’ behalf from nearly whole
cloth. We will not do so.
Because this argument is woefully underdeveloped, we find this issue
waived.
In their second issue, Appellants contend that the trial court erred by
failing to give due weight to Appellants’ claim that their chain of title offered
a clearer description of the parties’ property line. Appellants’ Brief at 12-14.
The argument Appellants set forth in support of this issue is similarly
undeveloped. Although Appellants have cited to boilerplate case law from the
-5- J-S39005-24
Commonwealth Court setting forth the standards for establishing quiet title,
Appellants have not provided citation to or application of the facts of this case
to any controlling authority or to the record. We, therefore, conclude that
Appellants’ have waived this issue.
C.
In their final issue, Appellants claim that the trial court erred in
attributing Appellants’ predecessors’ lack of use of the Disputed Property as
evidence that Appellees owned the Disputed Property. Appellant’s Brief at 14-
15. Appellants’ appear to argue that the court erroneously applied the
elements of adverse possession to their Quiet Claim and improperly relied on
counsel’s argument, and not sworn testimony, in making its decision.
However, Appellants have again failed to develop this argument with citation
to the record or apply the facts of this case to any controlling authority.3
Because Appellants have failed to develop the argument in support of this
claim in conformance with our Appellate Rules, we find it waived.
Having found each of Appellants’ issues waived, we affirm the judgment
in favor of Appellees. ____________________________________________
3 We acknowledge that Appellants cited to Conneaut Lake Park v. Klingensmith, 66 A.2d 828, 829 (Pa. 1949), for the general proposition that “[i]t has long been the rule of this Commonwealth that one who claims title by adverse possession must prove that he has actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct, and hostile possession of the land for twenty-one years[.]” They have not, however, applied the facts of the instant case to any authority supporting their assertion that “use of the land is not a required element under a claim for quiet title” or that the trial court’s consideration of property use is improper when ruling on a quiet title claim. Appellants’ Brief at 15.
-6- J-S39005-24
Judgment affirmed.
DATE: 12/20/2024
-7-