Baney v. Eoute
Decision Date | 04 September 2001 |
Citation | 784 A.2d 132 |
Parties | William W. BANEY, Sr. and Joy M., Baney, Husband and Wife, Appellants v. Emily EOUTE, Appellee. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Robert D. O'Connor, Lock Haven, for appellant.
Lewis G. Steinberg, Lock Haven, for appellee.
Before: JOHNSON, TODD, and POPOVICH, JJ.
¶ 1 William and Joy Baney (the Baneys) appeal from the trial court's order dismissing their complaint and entering a declaratory judgment in favor of Emily Eoute. The Baneys contend that the trial court erred in finding ambiguity in the language of a document that conveyed an easement from Eoute to the Baneys. The Baneys further contend that the trial court erred in concluding that the use of the easement was limited to the existing roadway rather than the fifty-foot width indicated in the metes and bounds description. After study, we affirm.
¶ 2 In November 1993, the Baneys purchased approximately one and three-quarters of an acre of land from Eoute and her niece, Glenda Sweeney. In addition to the purchased property, Eoute and Sweeney conveyed an express easement to the Baneys, granting them the use of a private road that the Baneys use to access their property. The private road is only twenty feet wide. The deed conveying the easement states in pertinent part:
TOGETHER with free ingress, egress and regress to and for the said Grantees, their heirs and assigns, at all times and seasons forever hereafter, into, along, upon and out of the said private road in common with the property owners adjacent thereof, their heirs and assigns.
¶ 3 The Baneys' central consideration was the fact that the easement contains a metes and bounds description of the conveyance measuring fifty feet wide. The record suggests that the Baneys removed trees, shrubs and a fence that laid within the fifty-foot width of the metes and bounds description, but beyond the twenty-foot road. Following Eoute's complaints about the removal of the fence, the Baneys filed an action in declaratory judgment asking the trial court to declare that they are entitled to the easement per the metes and bounds description and are permitted to remove trees to afford traffic with a better view of the road. The Baneys further requested that the use be permitted so long as it did not "substantially interfere" with the purpose of the easement. After the Baneys filed a response to Eoute's answer and new matter, the parties stipulated to the facts as pleaded and submitted the case to the trial court for determination. The trial court dismissed the Baneys' complaint on the basis that the written easement failed to support the Baneys' allegation that they were granted unrestricted use of a fifty-foot right of way. The trial court resolved, through extrinsic facts, that the easement was intended to be limited to the private road. Subsequent to the trial court's denial of their motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the Baneys filed this appeal.
¶ 4 The Baneys raise the following issues for this Court's review:
1. Should reference be made to matters outside an easement created by an express grant where the terms of the grant are clear and unequivocal?
2. Should the fact that the purpose of an easement can be accomplished in less than the whole area dedicated to the easement allow the servient estate the right to deny access to the unnecessary portion of the express easement?
¶ 5 Our appellate role in cases arising from non-jury trial verdicts is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed error in any application of the law. See Porter v. Kalas, 409 Pa.Super. 159, 597 A.2d 709, 711-12 (1991). The findings of the trial judge in a non-jury case must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as the verdict of a jury, and the findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless predicated upon errors of law or unsupported by competent evidence in the record. See id. Furthermore, our standard of review demands that we consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner. See id. Because the parties have stipulated to the facts as presented in their pleadings, we need only determine whether the trial court erred as a matter of law.
¶ 6 In support of their first question, the Baneys contend that the trial court erred in looking to extrinsic evidence to determine: 1) that a latent ambiguity existed; and 2) the parties' intention with respect to the scope of the easement. Brief for Appellant at 8. The Baneys argue that the language of the recorded conveyance document was sufficiently clear because the metes and bounds description of the easement encompassed the more narrow road. Brief for Appellant at 8.
¶ 7 Notwithstanding the fact that the document...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bert Co. v. Matthew Turk, William Collins, Jamie Heynes, David Mcdonnell, First Nat'l Ins. Agency, LLC
...other than a knowledge of the simple facts on which, from the nature of the language in general, its meaning depends." Baney v. Eoute , 784 A.2d 132, 136 (Pa. Super. 2001). In his 2017 employment contract, Mr. Turk agreed that, "If court action is necessary to enforce [his non-solicitation ......
-
Trombetta v. Raymond James Financial
...other than knowledge of the simple facts on which, from the nature of the language in general, its meaning depends. Baney v. Eoute, 784 A.2d 132, 136 (Pa.Super.2001) (citation omitted). A contract is not rendered ambiguous by the mere fact the parties do not agree on the proper construction......
-
Clark Distribution Sys., Inc. v. ALG Direct, Inc.
...simple facts on which, from the nature of the language in general, its meaning depends,” the term is not ambiguous. Baney v. Eoute, 784 A.2d 132, 136 (Pa.Super.Ct.2001). In the case sub judice, the term “common and usual” business purposes is not ambiguous. It is not a term that is capable ......
-
Masciantonio v. SWEPI LP, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-797
...disagree on the proper interpretation. See Stewart v. SWEPI, LP, 918 F.Supp.2d 333, 341–42 (M.D.Pa.2013) (quoting Baney v. Eoute, 784 A.2d 132, 136 (Pa.Super.Ct.2001) ). This court has previously noted that oil and gas leases employ certain "terms unique to...their genre." (Doc. 31 at 11 (q......