Riley, B. v. Belden, S. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J. A11016/14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 BRUCE C. RILEY AND LISA RILEY, : FORMERLY KRESOVICH, HUSBAND AND : WIFE; AND DOE MOUNTAIN FOREST : : PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION : v. : : SYLVIA A. BELDEN A/K/A BELDIN, : : JAMES A. McDONALD AND SANDY : WALLACE, : Appellants : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 800 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Order, April 19, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County Civil Division at No. 84 for the Year 2011 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., AND OLSON, J. MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 30, 2014 Appellees, plaintiffs in the court below, brought this action seeking to enjoin the defendants/appellants from interfering with their use of an ingress/egress road traversing appellants property. After a non-jury trial, the trial court granted a permanent injunction and enjoined appellants from interfering with or obstructing appellees right to use the road. This appeal followed. After careful review, we affirm. The matter before the Court is a civil action in which [appellees] seek to enjoin [appellants] from interfering with [appellees ] use of an ingress/egress road (hereinafter referred to as Old Road ) across [appellants ] property and an alternate ingress road adjoining [appellants ] property. [Appellees] aver J. A11016/14 that [appellants] have obstructed their use of the Old Road by digging trenches across it. [Appellants] do not deny the averred obstruction of the Old Road, nor their continued intention to interfere with [appellees ] use of the roads. Rather, [appellants] contend that [appellees] are not entitled to the use of the Old Road as they contend [appellees ] purported easement was the result of an invalid deed due to fraud. On May 9, 2012 we granted [appellees] a preliminary injunction that enjoined [appellants] from interfering with [appellees ] use of the road. On January 2 and 3, 2013 we held a non-jury trial in the matter[.] Trial court opinion, 3/19/13 at 1. In its opinion and order filed March 19, 2013, the trial court found that the deed was valid; that the easement in favor of appellees was not abandoned or terminated; that the location of the easement was the Old Road running across appellant McDonald s property, and not a private access road running adjacent to the property, as contended by appellants; and that the boundary line between Lot 24 of the Doe Mountain Forest subdivision and appellants property is 802.25 feet, not 882.25 feet as shown in the original subdivision plan. The trial court issued an order permanently enjoining appellants from interfering with or in any way obstructing appellees right to use the road known as the Old Road, which traverses appellants land from Milligans Cove Road in Harrison Township, Bedford County, into appellees properties within the Doe Mountain Forest subdivision; and permanently enjoining appellants from interfering with or obstructing appellees right to open and use a private access road on Lots 24 -2- J. A11016/14 and 1 of the Doe Mountain Forest subdivision adjoining appellants property as shown on the corrected plan of record for the subdivision. The trial court also retained jurisdiction in the matter in order to ensure compliance. On March 28, 2013, appellants filed post-trial motions which were denied, following a hearing, on April 19, 2013. Appellants filed notice of appeal on May 8, 2013. Appellants complied with Pa.R.A.P., Rule 1925(b), 42 Pa.C.S.A., and the trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion, relying on its prior opinion and order filed March 19, 2013. Appellants have raised the following issues for this court s review: 1. Was the evidence provided by the appellants sufficient to void the deed alleged to convey the appellees real estate to their predecessors in title? 2. Was the evidence provided by the appellants sufficient to prove relinquishment and abandonment of the right-of-way as stated in previous deeds by appellees predecessor in title, Penn Wilderness? 3. Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to establish the right-of-way conveyed to appellees and their predecessors in title, to be located 200 yards north of the last building of grantors? 4. Did appellees fail to provide sufficient evidence to establish the location, metes and bounds, of the claimed right-of-way? 5. Did appellees fail to provide sufficient evidence to establish the common property line between appellants and appellees properties? Appellants brief at 4. -3- J. A11016/14 Our appellate role in cases arising from non-jury trial verdicts is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed error in any application of the law. The findings of the trial judge in a non-jury case must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as the verdict of a jury, and the findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless predicated upon errors of law or unsupported by competent evidence in the record. Furthermore, our standard of review demands that we consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner. Baney v. Eoute, 784 A.2d 132, 135 (Pa.Super. 2001) (citation omitted). Additionally, the trial court, as factfinder, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence presented . . . . Turney Media Fuel, Inc. v. Toll Bros., Inc., 725 A.2d 836, 841 (Pa.Super.1999). [T]herefore, assessments of credibility and conflicts in evidence are for the trial court to resolve; this Court is not permitted to reexamine the weight and credibility determinations or substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. Id. Sovereign Bank v. Valentino, 914 A.2d 415, 420 (Pa.Super. 2006). Simply stated, the trial court, as fact-finder, did not find appellants primary witness, James McDonald, to be credible. 3/19/13 at 4.) (Trial court opinion, The trial court did not believe his testimony that his grandmother, Daisy Mowry, could not have signed the deed because she was in California at that time. (Id.) According to McDonald, he was a police officer in Los Angeles in August 1965, during the Watts riots, and visited his grandmother approximately three times a week during that time. (Id.) McDonald testified that Mowry never left her house in California during the -4- J. A11016/14 riots and could not possibly have executed the deed in Pennsylvania on August 24, 1965. (Id.) However, the trial court noted that the riots ended on or about August 15, 1965, nine days before the deed was signed. (Id.) In addition, McDonald s trial testimony was inconsistent with his deposition testimony and his answers to interrogatories. (Id.) Ultimately, the trial court did not credit McDonald s trial testimony concerning his grandmother s whereabouts on August 24, 1965. (Id. at 5.) The trial court s assessment of McDonald s credibility is supported by the record, and we are bound by it on appeal. The trial court also rejected McDonald s testimony that the right-of-way was properly located on a private access road running adjacent to his property. The trial court found that the location of the easement granted by the Mowrys was the road identified by the parties as the Old Road. (Id. at 7.) McDonald testified that the Old Road was hardly passable. However, the trial court found the testimony of appellees witness, Roland Beals, to be more credible in this regard. (Id. at 6-7.) Beals, who had no interest in this case, testified that he cut timber on the property from 1965 to 1969. (Id. at 7.) Beals testified that the Old Road was the only access to the property and was in good shape. (Id.) Again, we are bound by the trial court s credibility determinations. We find that the trial court s March 19, 2013 opinion ably and comprehensively disposes of all issues raised on appeal, and we affirm on -5- J. A11016/14 the basis of that opinion. The trial court s findings are amply supported by the record, and its conclusions are without legal error. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/30/2014 -6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
