|
Appellant failed to show that a Township road ever existed because she failed to show that the public used the road and that the Township maintained the road for a period of twenty-one years.
Warner-Vaught v. Fawn Township, 958 A.2d 1104 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
Appellant owned fifty acres of land bounded on the east by a Township road. However, on the north, the property was located fifty feet from the Township road. Appellant obtained a right of way through the adjacent property allowing access to the Township road; however, the adjacent property owner did not allow her to perform necessary tests for the construction of a residence on the property. Appellant had the property surveyed, which showed two roads to the north of her property. The Township told her that the roads were abandoned and she filed a mandamus action seeking an order directing the Township to open, repair and maintain the roads. Appellant offered maps and deeds as evidence of the existence of these roads. Both parties conceded that there was no evidence of a formal vacation of any of the roads. The trial court found no physical evidence of the road and, after reviewing the evidence presented, determined that Appellant failed to meet her burden of establishing that a road ever existed.
Appellant appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court examined three methods of establishing the existence of public roads: (1) court records showing the road to have been opened under the General Road Law; (2) establishing that a road has been used for public travel and maintained by the township for a period of twenty-one years; and (3) by prescription, requiring uniform, adverse, continuous use of the road under claim of right by the public for a period of twenty one years. Appellant could not establish that a road existed under method one because she offered no document demonstrating the adoption of a public road. Appellant could not establish the existence of a public road under method three because she offered no evidence of uniform, adverse, continuous use of the road by the public for a period of twenty-one years. Therefore, the only basis that Appellant had for the existence of a public road was method two.
The Commonwealth Court found that Appellant failed to meet these requirements. She only offered circumstantial evidence through deeds and surveys. The Commonwealth Court found that the mere existence of a road on paper confers no right to use the road. The Commonwealth Court determined that Appellant had failed to show that a public road ever existed.
Opinion Date: October 21, 2008
DISCLAIMER:
This site is designed to provide summary review of selected Pennsylvania and Federal Court decisions related to land use and land use controls. The information contained herein, although produced by professionals, is not intended to render any legal service. Nor should the materials herein be utilized as a substitute for professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service of an attorney or other professional should be sought. DCED makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information provided herein.
Back to Top |
