Opinion
J-A06044-17 No. 3717 EDA 2015
06-13-2017
RAILROAD RECOVERY INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, Appellant v. BRIAN MAST, AND SIXTH STREET MANAGEMENT CORP., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, AND JOHN GIUNUP, AND MICHAEL PETTACIO
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment Entered November 24, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): 03647, July Term 2013 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and RANSOM, J. MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.:
Appellant, Railroad Recovery Incorporated, appeals from the judgment entered November 24, 2015, in favor of Brian Mast, Sixth Street Management Corporation, John Giunup, and Michael Pettacio (collectively, "Appellees"), quieting title and granting ejectment over the right-of-way. We affirm.
Appellant purported to appeal from the September 11, 2014 order compelling testimony of the principal of Railroad Recovery Inc. and granting sanctions to Appellee; the October 7, 2014 order denying Appellant's motion for sanctions; and the November 24, 2015 order denying Appellant's motion for post-trial relief and entering judgment. However, of the aforementioned orders, the instant appeal is only proper in the context of the final order of November 24, 2017. See Pa.R.A.P. 341. --------
This appeal arises from a dispute over the ownership of a five-block strip of land located between Rockland and Cayuga Streets in the City and County of Philadelphia. The trial court outlined the relevant procedural history as follows:
[Appellant] Railroad Recovery Inc. (["Appellants"]) instituted this action against the [Appellees] on July 26, 2013, seeking an ejectment of the [Appellees] (Counts I & II) from (and a recovery of possession of) the disputed property. [Appellant] also sought injunctive relief (Count II) and to recover mesne profits and rent as a result of its alleged dispossession of the disputed property (Count III).Trial Court Opinion, 5/16/2016, at 1-2 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
[During discovery, the trial court compelled the deposition of Appellant's principal, Thomas Clauss by order dated September 11, 2014, and awarded Appellees $350 in sanctions. Appellant filed a motion for sanctions against Appellee, which was denied on October 7, 2014.]
After an extended period of discovery, this matter was scheduled for a non-jury trial between March 11, 2015[,] and March 17, 2015. On March 13, 2015, following the close of [Appellant's] case, the [trial] court granted: (1) the [Appellees'] motion for nonsuit of all counts against [Appellee] Brian Mast in his individual capacity; (2) the [Appellees'] motion for nonsuit to Count III of the [Appellant's] amended complaint, which sought mesne profits and rents; and (3) [Appellees] John Giunup's and Michael Pettacio's (collectively "Pettacio [Appellees]") motion to amend their counterclaims to assert a claim for adverse possession for the "Payload Property," an area within the disputed property.
On July 20, 2015, [the trial court] found in favor of the [Appellees] and quieted title of the disputed property in favor of the [Appellees]. On November 24, 2015, [the trial court] heard oral argument on the [Appellant's] motions for post-trial relief, which were denied that same day.
In November 2015, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and filed a court-ordered 1925(b) statement raising twenty-five issues. The trial court filed a thoroughly responsive opinion in May 2016.
On appeal, the Appellant raises the following fifteen issues for our review:
1. Is Appellant the real party in interest?Appellant's Brief at 4-5 (some formatting added).
2. Did the trial court lack subject matter jurisdiction to quiet title in Appellees, who failed to bring the real party in interest onto the record?
3. Is Poor Boys' prior judgment binding on Appellant?
4. Did the 1854 Dickenson Deed convey fee simple subject to condition subsequent?
5. Did the possibility of reversion terminate?
6. Is the 1862 trustee deed [] the common source?
7. Did Appellees prove intent to warrant title?
8. Did Appellees prove intent to convey an easement?
9. Did Appellees prove an easement?
10. Does common carrier obligation affect property ownership?
11. Is an express easement distinguished by nonuse?
12. Are Appellees' counterclaims time barred?
13. Was it error to allow oral amendments at trial?
14. Did Appellant establish a clear right to relief?
15. Was it an abuse of discretion to award sanctions without a prior order?
"In reviewing the ruling of the trial court in an action to quiet title, an appellate court's review is limited to determining whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, and whether there has been a manifest abuse of discretion." Vernon Twp. Volunteer Fire Dep't , Inc. v. Connor , 855 A.2d 873, 879 (Pa. 2004) (citing Moore v. Duran , 687 A.2d 822, 827 (Pa. Super. 1996), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 700 A.2d 442 (Pa. 1997)).
An appellate court will "respect the trial court's findings with regard to credibility and weight of the evidence unless it can be shown that the lower court's determination was manifestly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious or flagrantly contrary to the evidence." Gemini Equip. Co. v. Pennsy Supply , Inc., 595 A.2d 1211, 1215 (Pa. Super. 1991).
On appeal, Appellant raises fifteen issues for our review. We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable Denis P. Cohen of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, filed May 16, 2016. We conclude that Judge Cohen's comprehensive opinion is dispositive of the issues presented in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt the opinion as our own for purposes of further appellate review and affirm the judgment on that basis.
Judgment affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/13/2017
Image materials not available for display.