Superior Court affirms Berks County trial court’s enforcement of century-old utility easement
May 2, 2026
Publications
Szczepkowski v. Metropolitan Edison Company, No. 691 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2026).
For landowners and utilities alike, this case is a stark reminder that recorded easements retain their full force regardless of age and that knowingly building within an easement can result in court-ordered demolition decades later.
Earlier this year, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Berks County Court of Common Pleas’ grant of summary judgment in favor of Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed) in a dispute over a century-old, recorded electrical transmission line easement crossing private property in Cumru and Brecknock Townships. In an unpublished memorandum opinion by President Judge Emeritus Bender, joined by Judges Stabile and Sullivan, the court upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the landowners’ claims and enforcement of Met-Ed’s counterclaims, requiring the removal of an in-ground swimming pool, greenhouse, and shed constructed within the easement boundaries.
Key takeaways
- Discovery matters. Under Pa.R.Civ.P. 4014(b), unanswered requests for admissions are deemed admitted and can support summary judgment.
- Easements run with the land. A century-old recorded easement remains fully enforceable against successors in interest.
- Knowing encroachment is not de minimis. The de minimis doctrine requires innocence; a landowner who knowingly builds within an easement assumes the risk.
- The Statute of Frauds applies. Easement modifications must be in writing.
Background
In 1923, a prior owner granted Met-Ed a 200-foot-wide recorded easement across property in Cumru and Brecknock Townships for electrical transmission lines. The landowners purchased the property in 1979, taking title subject to the easement. Over the following decades, they constructed an in-ground swimming pool, greenhouse, and shed, all within the easement boundaries.
The litigation
In 2017, the landowners sued Met-Ed, asserting trespass and tort claims and alleging the easement had been “modified by agreement” to only 30 feet. Met-Ed counterclaimed, seeking removal of the encroaching structures.
The trial court’s rulings
May 2018 (Judge Jeffrey K. Sprecher). The landowners failed to respond to Met-Ed’s requests for admissions, resulting in deemed admissions under Pa.R.Civ.P. 4014(b). Judge Sprecher dismissed all claims, the tort claims as time-barred, and the trespass claims because no written easement modification existed.
November 2024 (Judge J. Benjamin Nevius). At deposition, the landowner admitted he knew about the easement’s boundaries and deliberately built within them. Judge Nevius granted Met-Ed’s counterclaim motion, ordering the removal of the pool, greenhouse, and shed within 120 days.
The appeal
The Superior Court affirmed on both issues. The deemed admissions established that the easement was 200 feet wide and never modified.
The landowners argued their encroachment was de minimis, citing Big Bass Lake Community Association v. Warren and Moyerman v. Glanzberg. The Superior Court rejected this, distinguishing Moyerman, which excused a one-foot gutter encroachment by an innocent owner, from the landowners’ knowing construction of substantially larger structures.
The full opinion from the trial court can be found here, and the full opinion from the Superior Court can be found here for those wishing to review the detailed procedural history and legal analysis.
