Easement Agreement Voided Due to Lack of Authority in Parking Lot Entrance Case

In Sehrawat v. Rite Aid, 2020 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3537 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 13, 2020), the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently declared void ab initio an easement agreement as a result of the grantor’s failure to properly execute the document, pursuant to a power of attorney.

Facts Surrounding the Easement Agreement

In Sehrawat, Rattan Real Estate Trust and Rite Aid shared a parking lot between their commercial properties. The parking lot had a single entrance from the street, the opinion said.

The entrance driveway and most of the lot was located on property owned by Rattan, the opinion said.

Rite Aid claimed that it was granted an express easement via a written easement agreement that was executed in 2001 but not recorded until 2017.

The written easement agreement was signed twice by Charles Beckman, as grantor—once as himself and once on behalf of his wife, Jean Beckman, pursuant to a power of attorney, the opinion said.

According to the opinion, Jean Beckman’s signature does not appear on the document.

At the time the written easement agreement was executed, Jean Beckman was the sole record owner of the property.

The notary seal on the written easement agreement states that “the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before the notary this 14th day of August, 2001, by Charles E. Beckman.”

There was no reference to or acknowledgment of a power of attorney in the notary seal, or any indication that Charles Beckman signed on behalf of Jean Beckman, the opinion said.

Trial Court Ruling and Notice Issues

Rattan claimed that it had no notice, actual or constructive, of the existence of the written easement agreement in favor of Rite Aid for access from the street to its parking lot when it purchased the property.

The trial court in Sehrawat ruled in favor of Rattan and declared the written easement agreement void ab initio because the document was not properly executed.

In addition, the trial court found that the evidence established constructive notice only of Rite Aid’s use of a portion of the parking lot, and that there was no evidence that Rattan had actual notice of the written easement agreement.

Superior Court Affirms Document Was Void

On appeal, the key issue was whether Rattan had sufficient notice, constructive or actual, of an easement in favor of Rite Aid at the time of the closing on its properties, and whether the written easement agreement should be stricken.

The Superior Court noted that the written easement agreement was recorded after Rattan purchased the property.

Citing to 21 P.S. Section 351, the court acknowledged there is no mandatory requirement to record a conveyance of real property; however, the consequence for the failure to do so is that the conveyance will be rendered void as to any subsequent bona fide purchaser.

The court reiterated from prior precedent that either actual or constructive notice is sufficient to prevent a subsequent purchaser from acquiring bona fide status—but that still does not apply if the agreement itself is void.

Rite Aid’s Arguments Rejected

The Superior Court concluded that regardless of whether Rattan had notice of the purported written easement agreement, such notice was irrelevant because the document was void ab initio.

Charles Beckman had no ownership interest in the property and, therefore, no authority to convey an easement. Nor did the notary language support his signing under a power of attorney.

Agency and Power of Attorney Principles

The court cited agency principles, reaffirming that agency cannot be inferred from familial relationships alone. The party asserting an agency relationship must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rite Aid argued that the notary’s acknowledgment supported the existence of a valid power of attorney. However, the notary seal stated only that Charles Beckman acknowledged the document—not that he acted as agent or under power of attorney.

The court relied on Bell v. Anderson to emphasize that courts cannot infer facts from a notary certificate beyond what is explicitly certified.

Lessons Learned

The Superior Court’s ruling in Sehrawat encourages parties seeking an agreement to determine the source of an agent’s authority before allowing the agent to sign a written easement agreement on the principal’s behalf.

As the Superior Court has highlighted in its ruling, if a third party relies on an agent’s authority, it must ascertain the scope of that authority at the time of reliance. If not, the third party that fails to do so runs the risk of having the written agreement voided.

—Clementa Amazan, an associate at Nochumson P.C., is the co-author of this article.

Reprinted with permission from the November 11, 2020 edition of The Legal Intelligencer © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. For information, contact 877-257-3382, reprints@alm.com or visit www.almreprints.com.