J-A07019-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
FRANCESCA V. GURECKA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ROBERT W. CARROLL AND
HOLLY LACEY CARROLL
Appellants No. 1301 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered July 11, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): GD 11-024656
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MUNDY, J.
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2015
I must respectfully dissent. The Majority correctly states the issue,
i.e., whether an easement by implication was created in 1956. The trial
court correctly answers the question stating “[T]he array of manholes in the
rear of the [Carrolls’] property does place the [the Carrolls] on notice of a
network of sewer lines coming onto and crossing their property.” Trial Court
Opinion (TCO), 7/11/14, at 8.
Manholes appearing on the lower portions of one’s property can only
mean one thing; sewer lines are running across the property. Manholes are
not placed on property indiscriminately and for decoration purposes. They
are placed there to give access to sewer line connections. One does not
need an affidavit or citation to the law to establish this fact. It is common
J-A07019-15
knowledge to any property owner living in the hills of western Pennsylvania.
The Honorable Michael A. Della Vecchia of Allegheny County, who viewed the
property, recognized this fact and based his ruling on it.
The Majority did not visit the subject property and now second guesses
Judge Della Vecchia’s finding after he visited the property. Based upon this
visit, Judge Della Vecchia found “the subject sewer, and for that matter the
network of sewers in the area of the Defendants’ property to be open, visible
and permanent.” TCO, at 8. Gurecka did not need to provide more.
Accordingly, I must dissent because the Majority is essentially
reweighing the trial court’s finding without having ever visited the subject
property.
-2-