A Pennsylvania couple fought to make their town maintain public steps that cross their private land; after evidence of 130 years of public use and repairs, an appeals court upheld the borough’s duty to maintain them

Representative Image (AI-generated)

Public steps connecting two streets may look like an ordinary part of a neighbourhood, but responsibility for maintaining them can become complicated when they run across privately owned land. A Pennsylvania couple faced that issue after their borough disputed its obligation to maintain a set of steps that had been used by residents for generations. The couple argued that the public had relied on the passage for more than a century and that the borough had repeatedly repaired and maintained it using public resources.The dispute reached Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court after the Borough of Jim Thorpe challenged a lower court ruling requiring it to continue maintaining the High Street Steps. In its October 30, 2026, decision in TM Loughery and MK Loughery v. Borough of Jim Thorpe, docket number 466 C.D. 2025, available on Justia, the appeals court upheld the ruling. It found that 130 years of uninterrupted public use, together with historical evidence of the borough’s involvement in repairs and reconstruction, established that the steps had been dedicated to public use and accepted by the borough.

Couple challenged borough’s responsibility for the steps

Thomas M Loughery and Michelle K Loughery owned a property at 49 West Broadway in Jim Thorpe, Carbon County, Pennsylvania. The High Street Steps connected two public roads, High Street and West Broadway, allowing people to walk between them without passing through private locations. However, the steps were situated partly on the couple’s property, partly on an adjoining property owned by 61 West Broadway LLC, and partly on land owned by the borough along High Street.The couple alleged that the borough had previously maintained and repaired the steps but later denied responsibility for them. On February 14, 2019, they filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the borough owned the steps. They also argued that the passage had been dedicated to public use through its long history of unrestricted access.The trial court held a non-jury trial on May 11, 2023, and on June 3, 2024, found in the couple’s favour on their dedication claim. It ruled in the borough’s favour on their separate ejectment claim. After the trial court denied its post-trial motion in December 2024, the borough appealed on January 7, 2025. The trial court subsequently entered formal judgment in favour of the couple on September 25, 2026.

130 years of public use supported the dedication claim

The borough argued that there was no formal record showing that its council had accepted the steps through an ordinance or resolution. It also described its historical maintenance activities as limited, arguing that occasional repairs over 130 years were insufficient to establish responsibility. The couple countered that residents had freely and continuously used the steps for more than a century. They also presented evidence that the borough had spent public money constructing, rebuilding and repairing the passage.The Commonwealth Court explained that Pennsylvania law recognises both express and implied dedication of property for public use. An implied dedication can be established through a series of actions demonstrating an intention to make property available for public purposes. The judges also referred to earlier legal decisions establishing that prolonged public use and municipal actions can demonstrate acceptance even without a formal resolution.The court found that the public’s uninterrupted use of the High Street Steps for 130 years established a conclusive presumption of the owners’ dedication and the borough’s acceptance. It also noted that the borough council’s own records provided evidence of its involvement.

Historical records documented the borough’s involvement with the steps

One of the important parts of the case was the evidence from historical borough council meeting minutes. Records from August 6, 1912, showed that a council member had suggested inspecting the steps and deciding how to make them more substantial and permanent. Minutes from September 3, 1912, recorded instructions to have them paved with substantial material. The borough’s involvement continued decades later. In November 1977, officials obtained a repair estimate, while the borough’s 1978 budget included $8,000 for reconstruction of the High Street Steps.In August 1978, the council also authorised advertising for bids to repair the passage. A September 2014 letter sent by the borough to residents further acknowledged the need to replace the steps. The appeals court considered these records evidence of authorised or ratified municipal actions. Together with the long history of public use, they supported the conclusion that the borough had accepted the dedication.

Appeals court upheld borough’s maintenance obligation

The borough also argued that it had the authority to decide whether the steps should remain open and how much maintenance they required under the Pennsylvania Borough Code. However, the appeals court explained that the borough’s responsibility did not arise from a formal statutory dedication under the code. Instead, it resulted from a common-law dedication established through public use and the borough’s actions.The court also discussed Pennsylvania’s Donated or Dedicated Property Act, which treats dedicated public property as being held by a municipality in trust for the benefit of the public. This means the municipality has responsibilities towards property dedicated to public use. Referring to earlier decisions, the judges explained that a municipality has a legal duty to keep dedicated public passages in reasonably safe condition for public travel.Ultimately, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, leaving the Borough of Jim Thorpe responsible for continuing to maintain the High Street Steps. The decision established that the absence of a formal acceptance document did not excuse the borough from its obligations when more than a century of public use and historical municipal records demonstrated its acceptance of the passage.