Guiser v. Sieber

287 A.3d 856 (Table)

Scott D. GUISER, Dennis H. Zeiders and Diane E. Zeiders, Jeffrey A. Biddle, George B. Biddle, Brooks E. Arnold and Sharon J. Arnold

v.Matthew S. SIEBER and Susan L. Sieber, Appellants

No. 94 MDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed October 13, 2022

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:

Appellants Matthew S. Sieber and Susan L. Sieber (collectively, "the Siebers") appeal from the judgment entered against them and in favor of Appellees Scott D. Guiser, Dennis H. Zeiders, Diane E. Zeiders, George B. Biddle, Jeffrey A. Biddle, Brooks E. Arnold, and Sharon J. Arnold (collectively, "Appellees") in this property dispute. The parties are neighboring property owners. The Siebers contend that the trial court erred in finding Appellees had a right to use a road that crossed the Siebers’ properties, that Appellees were entitled to an injunction preventing the Siebers from blocking the road, and that a 21-acre tract belonged to Guiser. We affirm.

The trial court accurately summarized the facts as follows:

At issue in this case is the [Appellees’] use of Woods Road, a private roadway that crosses [the Siebers’] properties and is used by [Appellees] to access their properties. [Appellants], Matthew and Susan Sieber, own six parcels of mountainous property in Juniata County which are at issue in this case. Woods Road travels through these six parcels. Defense Exhibit 21, April 28, 2017; Notes of Testimony [Trial], April 28, 2017[,] at 101. The Siebers’ parcels are not contiguous. Defense Exhibit 21. [Appellees’] properties all lie to the west of [the Siebers’] westernmost property. Id. The [Siebers] were at all times aware that the [Appellees] utilized Woods Road to access their property. N.T. at 113.

The [Siebers] also use Woods Road to access their parcels. Id. at 101. [The Siebers’] parcels consist of the following:

1. Parcel number 9-13-372 was purchased by the by the [Siebers] in 2000 and is approximately 26 acres. There are no improvements to the property. [Id. ] at 104.

2. Parcel number 9-13-46 was purchased by the [Siebers] in 2003 and is approximately 4 acres. There are no improvements to the property. Id. at 104-105.

3. Parcel number 9-9-22 was purchased by the [Siebers] in 1999 and is approximately 93 acres. It is improved with a cabin. Id. at 105.

4. Parcel number 1-10-10 was purchased by the [Siebers] in 2015 and is approximately 200 acres. It is improved with a small shack/cabin. Id. at 106.

5. Parcel number 1-10-9 was purchased by the [Siebers] in 2010 and is approximately 140 acres. It is improved with a cabin. Id. at 107.

6. Parcel number 1-10-2 was purchased by the [Siebers] in 2002 and is approximately 50 acres. There are no improvements to the property. Id. at 108.

[Appellee], Scott Guiser, acquired his property in 1985 when it was given to him by his father. Id. at 16. Guiser's father had purchased the property in 1973 as a 183-acre parcel with a cabin erected thereon. Id. at 16-17. The elder Guiser improved the property by erecting an additional cabin on the property, and subsequently adding onto the cabin in the early 1980s. Id. at 17. The cabin was built by [Appellee] Brooks Arnold in exchange for 10 acres of land. Id. In addition, Guiser's father had his parcel logged in 1983, with the timber exiting the property via Woods Road. Id. at 18. After the property was logged, Guiser accessed his property via Woods Road. Id. at 20. There is no other way to access the property via pickup truck other than Woods Road. Id. at 21.

Guiser's access to the property via Woods Road continued uninterrupted until 2011 or 2012. In 2011, Guiser was informed by [Appellant], Matthew Sieber, that he did not have a right-of-way. Id. at 24. Thereafter, the Siebers’ counsel sent a no trespass letter to Guiser on June 21, 2012. Id. at 24-25.

The Siebers were, however, aware of Guiser's use of Woods Road prior to 2011. Id. at 31, 113. Matthew Sieber had seen Guiser at some of the other [Appellees’] cabins, had been to Guiser's cabin, and had at one point requested that Guiser contribute funds toward road maintenance. Id. at 31, 35-36.

[Appellees] Jeffrey and George Biddle purchased their property in 1972 along with their father. Id. at 47. George Biddle testified that, over the years, ninety-nine percent of the access to their property has been via Woods Road. Id. On occasion, another route was taken, however, this route is no longer passable via pickup. Id. at 47, 50. The Biddles also have a cabin on their property, and had logging operations conducted on their property with the timber exiting via Woods Road. Id. at 57.

[Appellees] Dennis and Diane Zeiders purchased their property from Guiser via a sales agreement in 1999, with a deed being recorded in 2002. Id. at 78-79. As with the other [Appellees], the Zeiders used Woods Road to access their property continuously until receiving a June 21, 2012 no trespass letter. Id. at 80. Matthew Sieber was aware that the Zeiders used Woods Road, as he had been to the Zeiders’ cabin many times. Id. at 80-81. Dennis Zeiders testified that Sieber improved the Siebers’ properties via several cabins and stone crushing operations. Id. at 85.

[Appellees] Brooks and Sharon Arnold obtained their original parcel in 1981, and added additional parcels throughout the years. Id. at 92-94. The Arnolds have a cabin erected on their property which they use for hunting and recreation. Id. at 92. The Arnolds acquired their original parcel when Brooks Arnold built a cabin for Glenn Sieber, Matthew Sieber's father, in exchange for 10 acres. Id. at 94.^[1] An additional 4.3 acres was purchased from [Scott] Guiser, and approximately 30 acres were purchased from Paul Lyter. Id. at 92, 94. The Arnolds timbered their property in 1983, with the logs exiting via Woods Road. Id. at [94-95]. Like the other [Appellees], the Arnolds used Woods Road to access their property via pickup truck. Id. at 93. Each of the [Appellees] offered testimony that they used Woods Road to access their properties with some regularity.

Final Memorandum Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) ("Final Rule 1925(a) Op."), filed May 31, 2022, at 3-5 (footnote omitted).

Appellees filed a complaint against Sieber in 2013 seeking access to Woods Road and asserted claims of, inter alia , prescriptive easement, equitable servitude, and irrevocable license. Appellees amended their complaint in 2016 stating an additional claim by Guiser to quiet title as to 21 acres of land that the Siebers were allegedly encroaching on. Following a bench trial, the court found in favor of Appellees and against the Siebers. In its ruling, the court adopted Appellees’ Proposed Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law "in full" and granted Appellees the right to access Woods Road under the theories of prescriptive easement, equitable servitude, and irrevocable license. Order, filed 4/2/19, at 1-2. It also granted an injunction preventing the Siebers from denying the use of Woods Road to Appellees. Id. at 1. The court further quieted title in the 21 acres of land in favor of Guiser. Id.

On April 12, 2019, the Siebers filed a post-trial motion. On April 29, 2019, before the trial court had an opportunity to rule on the post-trial motion, the Siebers filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, a panel of this Court quashed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case. See Guiser v. Sieber , 237 A.3d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2020). We quashed the aspect of the appeal pertaining to Guiser's quiet title claim and we remanded for the trial court to determine the jurisdictional issue of whether any municipality was an indispensable party and whether Woods Road was a public or private road. Id. at 502, 507-08. Accordingly, we ordered that the injunctive relief be vacated. Id. at 508.

On remand, the trial court determined that Woods Road was a private road and there were no other indispensable parties. Order, filed 12/22/20, at 1. The court also reinstated its earlier rulings, namely that Appellees had a prescriptive easement over and along Woods Road, an equitable servitude existed in favor of Appellees, and Appellees acquired irrevocable licenses to use Woods Road. Id. The court also granted an injunction in favor of Appellees barring the Siebers from denying Appellees the use of Woods Road. Id. at 2.

The Siebers filed a second appeal. Because the trial court's decision did not provide specific citations to the record for the evidence on which it relied, we remanded for the issuance of a Rule 1925(a) opinion responsive to the issues raised, with specific factual findings and citations to the record. See Guiser v. Sieber , No. 94 MDA 2021, 2022 WL 500586, at *3 (Pa. Super. filed Feb. 18, 2022) (unpublished memorandum).

On remand, the trial court complied with this Court's directive and the Honorable Andrew J. Bender issued an opinion on May 31, 2022. Judge Bender noted that he had not presided over the bench trial because the trial judge, the Honorable Kathy A. Morrow, had retired prior to the filing of this Court's remand decision. Final Rule 1925(a) Op. at 1. He stated that he had reviewed the entire record and found that since Judge Morrow stated in her Rule 1925(a) opinion filed on August 1, 2019, that the evidence presented by Appellees was more credible that the evidence presented by the Siebers, he "must assume that the trial judge accepted as true the testimony and evidence presented by [Appellees] which would support the quieting of title in favor of [Appellee] Guiser, granting of an injunction, and findings of a prescriptive easement, equitable servitude, and irrevocable license." Id. at 1-2.

The Siebers raise the following issues for our review:

1. Did the lower court erroneously rule that [Appellees] had an entitlement to access over a logging road through unenclosed mountain woodlands including five of Siebers’ mountain properties when: (1) a prescriptive easement is not possible as the logging road goes through unenclosed woodlands that [Appellees] used with permission until June

...