Relocation – "[T]here is no per se prohibition against a landowner relocating a prescriptive easement unless such action completely denies the easement holder the intended use of the original easement. [cite omitted]. Rather, courts employ the test of whether the relocation will unreasonably interfere with the easement holder's use and enjoyment of his right of way. [cite omitted]. What constitutes unreasonable interference on the part of the servient owner depends upon the owner and his desired use, as well as the disadvantage to the owner of the easement. [cite omitted]. Our court has indicated that it would permit a servient estate to relocate a prescriptive easement where the resulting easement is as safe as the original location, the relocation results in a relatively minor change, and landowner's reasons for moving the easement are substantial." Soderberg v. Weisel, 455 Pa. Super. 158, 687 A.2d 839 (1997), citing Palmer v. Soloe, 411 Pa. Super. 444, 601 A.2d 1250 (1992).
Extinguishment
a. A prescriptive easement is extinguished in the same manner as any other type of easement (i.e., in the same manner as an easement by either grant, implication, exception or reservation).
b. An easement “created by prescription could not be terminated for mere non-use and the party seeking to terminate another's right to use the easement must present evidence demonstrating some conduct by the holder of the right that manifests his intent to abandon and permanently terminate his right to use the easement." Sabados v. Kiraly, 258 Pa. Super 532, 393 A. 2d 486 (1978) and Croyle v. Dellape, 2003 PA Super 328, 832 A.2d 466, (2004)
a. A prescriptive easement cannot be acquired through unenclosed woodlands. 68 P.S. § 411; Martin v. Sun Pipe Line Co., 542 Pa. 281, 666 A.2d 637 (1995); Humberston v. Humbert, 267 Pa. Super. 518, 407 A.2d 31 (1979).
b. Even where a right-of-way runs through improved land as well as unenclosed woodlands, 68 P.S. § 411 nonetheless applies to preclude the property owner from claiming the right to any easement by prescription. Trexler v. Lutz, 180 Pa. Super. 24, 118 A.2d 210 (1955), (citing Kurtz v. Hoke, 172 Pa. 165, 33 A. 549 (1896)).
Tacking It has been held that in order to tack a predecessor's prescriptive use, a conveyance of the property to the claimant is all that is required, not a written instrument or reference in the deed to the inchoate right. This is because easements pass by conveyance of the estate to which they are appurtenant. Predwitch v. Chrobak, 186 Pa. Super. 601, 142 A.2d 388 (1958); Partidge v. Ruttenberg, 54 Del. Co. 334 (1967) Matakitis v. Woodmansee, 446 Pa. Super. 433, 667 A.2d 228 (1995). However in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Baylor v. Soska, 540 Pa. 435, 658 A.2d 743 (1995), caution must be exercised. While it may be true that easements pass with title to the land to which they are appurtenant, there is no authority to support the contention that an unripened claim to an easement must be afforded the same treatment. The Supreme Court almost addressed this issue in 1998 when they agreed to hear an appeal where the framed issue was whether or not the holding in Baylor v. Soska, supra. regarding the necessity of privity for tacking also applied to prescriptive easements. Unfortunately, before the matter could be decided the appeal was dismissed as improvidently granted.
Use --- “A prescriptive easement, once acquired, may not be restricted unreasonably by the possessor of the land subject to the easement." Palmer v. Soloe, 411 Pa.Super. 444, 601 A.2d 1250 (1992).
Expansion “the degree of use of a prescriptive easement may increase in certain circumstances to accommodate the normal evolution of the dominant tenement where reasonable[.] but “[t]he extent of an easement created by prescription is fixed by the use through which it was created."" Hash v. Sofinowski, 337 Pa.Super. 451, 487 A.2d 32, 36 (Pa.Super.1985) that “any changes in the use of a prescriptive easement cannot result in an unreasonable increased burden on the servient estate and … the increase in use must be reasonably foreseeable at the time the easement is established."
“any changes in the use of a prescriptive easement cannot result in an unreasonable increased burden on the servient estate and ••• the increase in use must be reasonably foreseeable at the time the easement is established." Hash, 487 A.2d at 35.
Conversion -- “our courts have uniformly declined to accept conversions from private residential use to commercial use as “normal evolution" of the dominant tenement." McGavitt v. Guttman Realty Co --- A.2d ----, 2006 WL 2474343 (Pa.Super.), 2006 PA Super 242.
Trees.
a. “Encroaching tree parts, by themselves, do not establish “open and notorious" use of the land. Neither roots below ground nor branches above ground fairly notify an owner of a claim for use at the surface." Koresko v. Farley 844 A.2d 607 Pa.Cmwlth.,2004.
b. “(E)ncroaching tree limbs are a trespass which a property owner may remove." Jones v. Wagner, 425 Pa.Super. 102, 624 A.2d 166 (1993)
(c) James S. Tupitza 2010
Confused.
I married a UK citizen on the internet. She came to the US and we got married. We had a son a little over a month ago. Problem is it turned out she lied about everything she told me about herself. It turns out she left her other two kids because ''she couldnt handle them anymore.'' (I was told this by her sister.) Ive also found out that the only reason she married me was to obtain a greencard. A one way plane ticket to England is 900 bucks and simply put, I dont make that kind of money. What kind of rights do I have in this kind of situation. My son was born in the United States. So so far as I know he is legally a US citizen. I dont want to lose my son. What should I do?
In August 2010, I rented a car from Hertz (from the US Website) but the rental itself was in Australia.
I returned the car without any damage, refuled and at the date and location as specified in the rental contract. When I returned the car, I was told that 2 days prior someone in a different Hertz location had closed my contract and had charged my credit card with an amount of 1041 AUS $. My rental location also charged my credit card with the actual amount as stated in my rental contract which was 278 AUS $. After my return I contacted Hertz Customer Service in the assumption they would immediately notice this double charge and that they would return the 1041 AUS $ plus Foreign Txn Fee to me. But after 2 month, I am still fighting for some of the money. Hertz at some point refunded an amount of 710 US$ to me (~780 AUS at that time). They never called me, nor did they ever sent a letter why they returned this amount and not the actual 1041 AUS.
I have called Hertz several times but they don't let me speak to someone from the billing department which is handling such disputes. There is only the customer service rep who is writing down (hopefully) whatever I am telling them. But Hertz itself never contacted me at all. Not even applogizing for the faulty charge (even though they must have acknoledged at least some of it due the partial refund).
My question is now, what are my legal rights to get the remaining balance back from Hertz? All the charges and refunds made by Hertz also came from Hertz Australia whih also involves cost to me for foreign txn fees. How am I getting these back?
commission forfieture
Is this forfieture legal?
Currently an additional 12% of Commission is being withheld to cover charge-backs for a period of 6 months. It is
anticipated the commission held back should be approximately equal to routine amount of commission charge-backs WCI
incurs after an employee leaves the company. This rate is subject to change from time to time. All of this commission withheld from an employee during the prior 6 months will be forfeited at the end of employment to offset expected chargeback expense.