Graff v. Scanlan
1996 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 110, 673 A.2d 1028 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner who voluntarily landlocks a parcel of their own property by conveying away all means of access without reserving an easement is precluded from claiming 'strictest necessity' under the Private Road Act to condemn a right-of-way over a neighbor's property.
Facts:
- In 1974, Elmer and Cecilia Graff purchased a 42-acre tract of land.
- In 1978, the Graffs subdivided the tract into nine lots (Bruce's Hill); lots 1-8 had access to a public road, but lot 9 was left without direct road access, abutting property owned by the Scanlans and the Normans.
- The local Township required the Graffs to obtain an easement from the Scanlans and Normans for lot 9 to access a public road, which the Graffs failed to do.
- The Township then required the Graffs to note on the subdivision plan that lot 9 could not be sold separately from the Scanlans' adjacent lot, and the Graffs entered into an option agreement for the Scanlans to purchase lot 9, which was never exercised.
- Between 1978 and 1984, the Graffs sold lots 1 through 7.
- In 1985, after the Scanlans refused to sell a right-of-way, the Graffs sold lot 8—the final lot providing potential access from lot 9 to a public road—without expressly reserving an easement for lot 9, thereby completing the landlocking of their own property.
Procedural Posture:
- The Graffs filed a petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (trial court) seeking the appointment of a Board of View to establish a private road.
- The trial court appointed a Board of View.
- The Board of View issued a report finding that a private road across the Scanlans' and Normans' properties was necessary.
- The Scanlans and Normans (appellants) appealed the Board of View's report to the Court of Common Pleas.
- The Court of Common Pleas confirmed the Board's report and ordered the private road to be opened.
- The Scanlans and Normans appealed the trial court's order to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a landowner who voluntarily creates a landlocked parcel by conveying away all access without reserving an easement precluded from obtaining a private road over a neighbor's property under the Private Road Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Doyle, Judge.
No. A landowner whose hardship is self-created by voluntarily conveying away all access to a parcel of land cannot meet the 'strictest necessity' requirement of the Private Road Act to condemn a private road over a neighbor's land. The court first determined that an easement by necessity was implied over lot 8 at the moment the Graffs sold it, which should have been considered by the Board of View. However, the dispositive issue is that the Graffs voluntarily created their own predicament. Citing persuasive authority from Louisiana in English Realty Co. v. Meyer, the court reasoned that the Act's remedy is not available when the enclosure is a direct consequence of the landowner's own actions rather than the location of the land itself. The Graffs acted with full knowledge that they lacked an easement over their neighbors' property and still chose to sell off all of their own access, so their self-created landlock cannot form the basis of a finding of 'strict necessity' required to take another's private property.
Dissenting - Silvestri, Senior Judge,
Yes. A self-created landlock should not defeat a finding of necessity under the Private Road Act. The dissent argues that nothing in the Act or Pennsylvania precedent prevents a landowner who caused their own landlock from seeking relief. It is illogical and punitive to deny the original owner a remedy when a subsequent purchaser of the same landlocked property, even with full knowledge of its condition, would be entitled to a private road under existing precedent like In re Petition for a Private Road in Monroeville Borough. The purpose of the Act is not merely to vindicate individual rights but also serves a public purpose by ensuring land remains usable and connected to public highways, a consideration that should outweigh the fault of the individual landowner.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant 'self-created hardship' limitation on the Pennsylvania Private Road Act, effectively importing a 'clean hands' doctrine into this area of property law. It clarifies that the 'strictest necessity' required by the statute cannot be manufactured by the landowner's own voluntary and knowledgeable actions. The decision places a heavy burden on property owners and developers to exercise foresight in reserving easements when subdividing and selling land, as courts will not use the quasi-eminent domain power of the Act to remedy foreseeable, self-inflicted problems. Future litigation may explore the boundaries of what constitutes a 'voluntary' act, distinguishing it from situations where a landlock is caused by government action or other factors beyond the owner's control.
Unlock the full brief for Graff v. Scanlan