Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,300+ case briefs...

Estojak v. Mazsa

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
562 A.2d 271


Andrew and Michael Estojak (plaintiffs) own a business located in the Minsi Trail Farm Plan (Plan). In July 1985, the Estojaks purchased two additional lots in the Plan located at the intersection of Yeates Street and East Union Street. Yeates and East Union were dedicated for public use on the recorded plan. However, the municipality never accepted these two streets for public use, and they were never opened to the public. The Estojaks bulldozed a roadway over East Union Street to gain access to their new lots. The Mazsas and the Johnsons (defendants) own homes on either side of East Union Street. The defendants both bought their properties in the 1950s. Both defendants have used the land that was supposed to be East Union Street as an extension of their respective yards, even building a driveway and planting trees on part of the street. During most of their property ownership, the defendants did not restrict access across the East Union Street land. However, after the Estojaks’ bulldozed the roadway, the defendants erected a fence to prevent the Estojaks from using the street as a roadway. The Estojaks sued, arguing the Plan created an easement that gave them access across East Union Street. The parties stipulated that the ownership of East Union Street had reverted back to the defendants, as adjoining property owners. However, the parties disagreed whether the defendants’ use of East Union Street as a yard was adverse possession sufficient to also end any easement. The defendants also testified that a natural embankment prevented vehicular access across East Union Street. The trial court found for the defendants. The Superior Court found that the trial court had applied the wrong test, but still found that the easement had been extinguished by adverse possession under the correct test. The Estojaks appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Larsen, J.)

Concurrence (Nix, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial