`
`NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
`
`
`ALLEN BICKEL, DIANE BICKEL AND
`EMILY BICKEL
`
`
`
`
`
`DANIEL J. DUGAN
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Appellant
`
` IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
` PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
` No. 1331 WDA 2019
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the Order Entered August 6, 2019,
`in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County,
`Civil Division at No(s): 2017-1826-CD.
`
`
`BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*
`
`JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.:
`
`FILED JUNE 12, 2020
`
`Defendant, Daniel J. Dugan, appeals from the order partially granting
`
`summary judgement to Plaintiffs, Allen, Diane, and Emily Bickel (“the
`
`Bickels”), in this property dispute between neighbors. As the learned trial
`
`court correctly recognized in its letter to this Court, and as the Bickels contend
`
`in their brief, Mr. Dugan’s appeal is premature. We therefore quash it.
`
`Briefly, the Bickels own a landlocked residence in Clearfield County,
`
`which Mr. Dugan’s farm surrounds. The Bickels sued Mr. Dugan in a multiple
`
`count complaint. The first count alleges that the Bickels own a perpetual
`
`easement over Mr. Dugan’s land, via Rabbit Lane. The Bickels produced a
`
`written instrument, which the prior owners of the neighboring properties
`
`____________________________________________
`
`* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`J-A12040-20
`
`executed and recorded. The parties filed cross-motions for summary
`
`judgment on the issue of whether the language of the recorded document was
`
`legally sufficient to create an easement and to establish its location and scope.
`
`The trial court concluded, as a matter of law, the document sufficiently
`
`evidenced the prior owners’ desires to create an easement over Mr. Dugan’s
`
`farm for the benefit of the Bickels’ dominant estate. The court granted partial,
`
`summary judgment to the Bickels on the question of whether there was an
`
`easement of some sort. However, that only disposed of half of their first
`
`count; the trial court made clear that the Bickels’ motion was denied “as to
`
`the exact location and scope of the right of way. There is insufficient evidence
`
`. . . for this decision to be made, i.e., there remain material issues of fact.”
`
`Trial Court Order, 8/6/19.
`
`Three weeks later, Mr. Dugan filed a notice of appeal from the partial
`
`denial of summary judgment. The trial court, sua sponte, wrote a letter to
`
`this Court expressing its opinion that Mr. Dugan’s appeal was premature. This
`
`Court then issued a rule to show cause why we should not quash. In response,
`
`Mr. Dugan explains that the grant of partial, summary judgment “finally and
`
`conclusively determined a key issue.” Mr. Dugan’s 9/9/19 Letter (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Generally, an order disposing of only an issue at summary judgment
`
`does not constitute a final, appealable order. See, e.g., Swift v. Milner, 442
`
`A.2d 1144 (Pa. Super. 1982); Rohr v. Keystone Insurance Co., 439 A.2d
`
`809 (Pa. Super. 1982). A final, appealable order is “any order that disposes
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`J-A12040-20
`
`of all claims and of all parties; or is entered as a final order . . . .” Pa.R.A.P.
`
`341 (emphasis added). Given Mr. Dugan’s admission that the order granting
`
`partial, summary judgment only determined “a” key issue, it is not a final,
`
`appealable order.
`
`In fact, he immediately appealed as a precaution, because he knew of
`
`a case where we had entertained an appeal from an order granting partial,
`
`summary judgment — specifically, Resolution Trust Corp. v. Urban
`
`Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, 603 A.2d 618 (Pa.
`
`Super. 1992), affirmed, 683 A.2d 972 (Pa. 1994). In Resolution Trust, we
`
`declined an appellee’s request to quash, because the partial denial of summary
`
`judgment determined “finally that fraudulent misrepresentations made by the
`
`[plaintiff] may not be asserted as a defense in this action to impose liability
`
`on the insurer pursuant to its contract.” Id. at 620. In other words, the trial
`
`court’s order put an affirmative defense of fraudulent misrepresentation out
`
`of court. The order was therefore final as to that affirmative defense.
`
`Here, by contrast, the trial court did not put an affirmative defense out
`
`of court. It merely granted judgment as a matter of law to the Bickels on half
`
`of their first count. Hence, Resolution Trust does not apply; the general rule
`
`requiring complete finality to appeal does. Finality is lacking.
`
`Appeal quashed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`J-A12040-20
`
`Judgment Entered.
`
`
`
`
`
`Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
`Prothonotary
`
`
`
`Date: 6/12/2020
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
