Doman v. Brogan
1991 Pa. Super. LEXIS 933, 592 A.2d 104, 405 Pa. Super. 254 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a deed contains conflicting descriptions of a boundary line, established rules of construction give preference to artificial monuments on the ground, such as walls, over inconsistent calls for courses and distances (metes and bounds).
Facts:
- Ada Doman, a common grantor, owned a double-block dwelling consisting of lots 34 and 36.
- In 1968, her daughter, Bertha Brogan, began renting lot 36 from her.
- In 1972, Brogan purchased lot 36 from Ada Doman. The deed described the common boundary as running through 'the center wall of the double dwelling' and also provided specific metes and bounds (M&B) figures.
- Title to the adjoining lot 34 eventually passed from Ada Doman to her grandson and his wife, George and Donna Doman, in 1986, with their deed using similar boundary language.
- A physical inspection and survey revealed that there was no single, continuous 'center wall' dividing the two lots; the dividing walls were staggered on different floors.
- The M&B description in the deeds formed a single vertical line that did not align with any of the existing physical walls, cutting through rooms.
- Since 1968, Brogan had continuously occupied certain areas, including a second-floor bedroom and basement stairs, which fell on the Domans' side of the boundary line if the existing central walls were used to define it.
Procedural Posture:
- George and Donna Doman filed an action in ejectment against Bertha Brogan in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, a trial court, to resolve the boundary dispute.
- Following a non-jury trial, the court found in favor of the Domans.
- Brogan filed post-trial motions for judgment n.o.v. (judgment notwithstanding the verdict) or, in the alternative, a new trial.
- The trial court denied Brogan's motions but entered an amended verdict which, while still finding for the Domans on possession, granted Brogan an easement by necessity to access her cellar.
- Brogan, as appellant, appealed the final judgment to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court, with the Domans as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When a deed describes a property boundary by referencing both an artificial monument ('the center wall') and specific metes and bounds figures, and these two descriptions conflict when applied to the property, should the court use the existing physical walls or the metes and bounds measurements to determine the boundary?
Opinions:
Majority - Popovich, Judge
The court should use the existing physical walls to determine the boundary, not the metes and bounds measurements. When a deed's description of a boundary contains conflicting calls, the existing physical monuments prevail over inconsistent metes and bounds figures. The primary function of a court in a boundary dispute is to ascertain and effectuate the intentions of the parties at the time of the original subdivision. To do this, courts apply established rules of construction that create a hierarchy of reliability for boundary descriptions: natural monuments prevail over artificial monuments, which prevail over adjacent boundaries, which in turn prevail over courses and distances. Here, the deed's reference to 'the center wall' is a call for an artificial monument. Although no single 'center' wall exists, the existing 'central' walls on the property are the best evidence of the grantor's intent. The conflicting M&B figures are deemed more likely to be an error, as enforcing them would lead to the absurd result of dividing rooms, which the original parties could not have intended. Therefore, the boundary should be determined by the vertical planes of the existing central walls, not the inconsistent M&B line. This ruling affirmed the trial court's decision awarding the Domans possession of the disputed bedroom and basement areas.
Analysis:
This case serves as a classic application of the hierarchy of preferences in deed construction for resolving boundary disputes. It reinforces the long-standing principle that physical monuments on the ground are considered more reliable indicators of party intent than are measurements and distances, which are more susceptible to error. The decision illustrates how courts handle a latent ambiguity—a description that appears clear on its face but becomes problematic when applied to the physical reality of the property. By favoring a pragmatic interpretation based on existing structures over a literal reading of survey data, the court prioritized a sensible division of the property that avoids an absurd result, thereby effectuating the presumed original intent of the grantor.
