Baylor v. Soska
658 A.2d 743 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
Facts
Robert and Lillian Baylor filed a quiet title action for a parcel of land containing a garden, hedges, and a garage, claiming adverse possession. Mrs. Soska, the appellant, asserted ownership of the land and counterclaimed for the garage's removal. The Baylors' predecessor in title, Mary Hanecak, purchased the property in 1942, which included a house and garage. Around 1952, Mrs. Hanecak's husband built an addition to the garage on the disputed parcel, and Mrs. Hanecak maintained this area. In 1973, the Baylors bought the property from Mrs. Hanecak, subsequently replacing the garage addition with a framed enclosure. The core dispute is whether the Baylors can tack Mrs. Hanecak's period of adverse possession to their own to meet the statutory requirement.
Procedural history
The Baylors initially filed a quiet title action, which the trial court first denied, finding insufficient possession and no valid tacking. The trial court then reversed itself upon exceptions, awarding the Baylors a strip of land based on an adverse possession theory, citing 21 P.S. § 3 and the intent to convey appurtenances. The Superior Court affirmed this decision. Mrs. Soska then petitioned for and was granted an allowance of appeal to this court.
Issue
Can a grantee tack a predecessor's period of adverse possession to their own when the disputed land, though occupied by the predecessor and containing an "appurtenance" like a garage addition, was not explicitly described in the deed of conveyance?
Holding
No, a grantee cannot tack a predecessor's period of adverse possession if the disputed land is not described in the instrument of conveyance. The court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that the Baylors' quiet title action fails.
Rule
To establish adverse possession, one must prove actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct, and hostile possession of the land for twenty-one years. Tacking periods of possession from prior owners is permissible only when there is privity, which requires the disputed land to be described in the instrument of conveyance. The court explicitly rejects the notion that "circumstances" or the "appurtenances" statute (21 P.S. § 3) can convey an inchoate adverse possession claim for land not described in the deed. The only valid method to convey title asserted by adverse possession is to describe the intended land in the instrument of conveyance.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.