Opinion
J-A05044-17 No. 1337 WDA 2016
07-25-2017
KENNETH P. LAUGHLIN AND JOYCE L. LAUGHLIN, HUSBAND AND WIFE Appellees v. RAYMOND A. SCHNUR Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment Entered September 9, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County
Civil Division at No(s): A.D. No. 2014-10958 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MOULTON, J. MEMORANDUM BY MOULTON, J.:
Raymond A. Schnur appeals from the September 9, 2016 judgment entered in favor of Kenneth P. Laughlin and Joyce L. Laughlin ("the Laughlins") by the Butler County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the relevant history of this matter as follows:
[The Laughlins] commenced the present action by filing a Complaint in Equity, requesting permanent injunctive relief against [Schnur]. [The Laughlins] assert that [Schnur] has placed a split rail fence along the northern edge of a right-of-way, located along the southern boundary of the [Laughins]' property, which has obstructed [the Laughlins]' full use of said right-of-way. [The Laughlins] seek an order directing [Schnur] to remove the fence from the right-of-way, and that restrains and enjoins [Schnur] from erecting any other obstruction along said right-of-way, where the same borders the [Laughlins]' property.Background, Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law, and Decision, 6/21/16, at 1-2 ("Trial Ct. Op."). The trial court also made findings of fact, which are supported by the record and which we adopt and incorporate herein. See id. at 2-4.
On April 25, 2016, the case proceeded to a non-jury trial. On June 21, 2016, the trial court entered an order granting a permanent injunction in favor of the Laughlins and issued an accompanying opinion. The trial court ordered Schnur to remove the fence and "further enjoined [Schnur] from erecting any other obstruction, which interferes with the [Laughlins]' access to their property from the 50 foot right-of-way, along the southern line of the [Laughlins]' property." Trial Ct. Op. at 18.
On June 30, 2016, Schnur filed a motion for post-trial relief, which the trial court denied on August 11, 2016. On September 9, 2016, the Butler County Prothonotary entered judgment. Schnur filed a timely notice of appeal.
Schnur raises the following issues on appeal:
I. Did the Lower Court err in holding that the Easement at issue entitled [the Laughlins] to unfettered access from any desired point along [Schnur]'s Property, and that such access would not increase the burden to the servient tenement?
II. Did the Court err in holding that [the Laughlins] did not have sufficient access to and from their property and Eagle Mill Road in a manner consistent with the language of the deeds and chains of title of each of the properties here involved, and that the split-rail fence at issue constituted a
substantial interference with [the Laughlins]' right of access to and from Eagle Mill Road and their Property?Schnur's Br. at 4 (answers below omitted).
III. Did the Lower Court err in granting an injunction requiring the removal of the entire length of [Schnur]'s fence, which was not a narrowly tailored remedy to abate the alleged injury as required?
"[W]hen reviewing the grant or denial of a final or permanent injunction, an appellate court's review is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law." Buffalo Township v. Jones , 813 A.2d 659, 663-64 (Pa. 2002); see also WellSpan Health v. Bayliss , 869 A.2d 990, 995-96 (Pa.Super. 2005).
The trial court found that: the Laughlins' had an express easement that gave them the right to access their property, from the 50 foot right-of-way, at any point or points along the southern line of their property; Schnur's construction of the split rail fence substantially interferes with the Laughlins' use of the easement; and injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy for permanent, substantial interference with the use of an easement by the easement owner. After our review of the certified record, the parties' briefs, and the relevant law, we conclude the trial court did not err in granting the Laughlins' request for a permanent injunction. We agree with the analysis set forth in the trial court's opinion, which we adopt and incorporate herein. See Trial Ct. Op. at 4-17.
Judgment affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 7/25/2017
Image materials not available for display.