« Erie PA News and Events for Sunday June 24, 2007 | Main | Erie PA News and Events for Monday June 25, 2007 »
Trouble Brewin’ In Crawford—Get The Guns Out Ma
Posted by Richard on June 24, 2007
Does anyone know the details on a legal dispute going on in Crawford County over land formerly used by railroads? This Sunday Erie Times News has a letter to the editor by a disgruntled land owner over impending public usage of the former railroad property as a walking/bike trail. It seems to me that the landowners are trying to claim property that was probably condemned by the state back in the 1800’s and given to the railroad’s to use.
One thing that struck me in the letter was the following: “Without notice to any of the 18 adjoining landowners in a 3.5-mile stretch, [Roger Stranahan and the Clear Lake Authority] entered our land with a bulldozer… We asked the whole time to see the so-called proof of their ownership. It turned out they had only a quit-claim deed.” The letter goes on to say, “I’m hoping a judge in the near future will agree with our group that the burden of proof of land ownership is on the holder of the quit-claim deed, and we can recoup our money to repair property damages.” One thing I do know is that a quitclaim deed is certainly a valid instrument to transfer and show proof of ownership of land but I wasn’t to sure on the burden of proof of a landowner. Turns out the “Angry 18” would have the burden:
The plaintiff’s burden in an action of ejectment is clear: he must establish a right to immediate exclusive possession. In order to recover in an ejectment action, the plaintiff must show title at the commencement of the action and can recover, if at all, only on the strength of his own title, not because of weakness or deficiency of title in the defendant. This rule places upon the plaintiff the burden of proving a prima facie title, which proof is sufficient until a better title is shown in the adverse party… Until and unless the plaintiff has made a prima facie case by showing title sufficient upon which to base a right of recovery, the defendant is not required to offer evidence of his title.
Hallman v. Turns, 334 Pa. Super. 184, 189 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) (emphasis added) (quotes and citations removed for easier reading).
Ruh-roh Raggy. Looks like the Angry 18 have the burden but I suspect they already know that and are not in a position to prove ownership (as apparent from a failed lawsuit in 2006). Assuming the land was condemned back in the 1800’s and the Angry 18’s predecessors in interest had property taken away from them, it’s hard to sympathize with those land owners today who clearly never expected to regain the property and purchased the land knowing there were railroad tracks abutting it. In short, they’re no worse off.
This land is going to be used to expand an already existing and successful trail. As far as I can see, there is no valid reason to impede the progress and provide a land-windfall to various land owners.
Posted by Richard at June 24, 2007 6:05 PM
Comments
Anyone remember what happened during the 2005 Pennsylvania Greenway Sojourn that went through Erie and Crawford Counties? Is this the same area?Read Pittsburgh Post Gazette article
Posted by: Emma at June 24, 2007 9:28 PM
Add a
link and graphic to your site to show that you're from Erie. Meet new peeps, share you thoughts on our fair city, do whatever you like.
