From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Starling v. Lake Meade Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Mar 23, 2016
133 A.3d 733 (Pa. 2016)

Opinion

No. 843 MAL 2015.

03-23-2016

W. Lowell STARLING and Nancy Starling, Respondents v. LAKE MEADE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner.


ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of March 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

1. Whether the Superior Court erred as a matter of law in holding that a fee simple owner of a private road who grants an easement over that road extinguishes its fee simple ownership of the road?

2. Whether the Superior Court's decision conflicts with Pa.R.C.P. 1035 when the court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and directed the entry of injunctive relief in favor of the respondents and did so without considering the facts of record found by the trial court, without considering the record in the light most favorable to petitioner, and where there are genuine issues of material fact precluding the entry of judgment in the respondents' favor?

3. Whether the Superior Court erred as a matter of law in concluding that extrinsic evidence can vary property boundaries on a recorded subdivision plan?

Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.


Summaries of

Starling v. Lake Meade Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Mar 23, 2016
133 A.3d 733 (Pa. 2016)
Case details for

Starling v. Lake Meade Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:W. Lowell STARLING and Nancy Starling, Respondents v. LAKE MEADE PROPERTY…

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Date published: Mar 23, 2016

Citations

133 A.3d 733 (Pa. 2016)

Citing Cases

Starling v. Lake Meade Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.

3. Whether the Superior Court erred as a matter of law in concluding that extrinsic evidence can vary…