Battiste v. Borough of East McKeesport
94 A.3d 418
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Battiste purchased an 11‑unit apartment building in 1999 and obtained a February 2008 building permit to reconfigure units (convert living rooms to bedrooms; reduce units to ten).
- Battiste met with Borough Code Official Ronald Bachner during renovations; Battiste later requested occupancy permits which Bachner denied and then issued a stop‑work order five days after Battiste reported Bachner to the state labor agency.
- Battiste sued the Borough and Bachner seeking rescission of the stop‑work order and issuance of occupancy permits, asserting promissory estoppel and mandamus claims among others; summary judgment was granted to defendants by the trial court.
- On appeal, the Superior Court: (1) reversed summary judgment as to Battiste’s mandamus claim to lift the stop‑work order (genuine factual dispute whether work exceeded the permit and whether the stop order properly identified reasons/conditions); (2) dismissed the occupancy‑permit claim as moot because the building is now uninhabitable; and (3) affirmed summary judgment for defendants on promissory estoppel (Battiste admitted no definite promise by Bachner).
- The court also held the trial court erred in sua sponte deeming Battiste to have admitted defendants’ new‑matter allegations by failing to reply, and remanded the mandamus claim for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of stop‑work order / entitlement to mandamus to lift it | Bachner acted arbitrarily; order lacked specific reasons/conditions; mandamus appropriate if order arbitrary | Work exceeded the permit scope (common‑room conversion not disclosed); stop order justified | Reversed as to mandamus lifting the stop‑work order; genuine issue of material fact whether work exceeded permit and whether order was arbitrary — remanded |
| Issuance of occupancy permits | Battiste sought permits (three units); claimed right to permits | Borough/Bachner refused based on insufficient occupancy information; also point to alleged expanded/changed use | Dismissed as moot — building uninhabitable now, so relief cannot be given |
| Promissory estoppel (promises by code official) | Bachner promised issuance of permits if certain tasks done; Battiste relied | Defendants deny any specific promise; plaintiff admitted no definite promise in deposition | Affirmed for defendants — Battiste admitted no definite promise so estoppel fails |
| Trial court deeming admissions from failure to reply to new matter | Battiste: trial court erred to sua sponte treat new matter as admitted without motion | Borough: argued deemed admissions supported summary judgment (raised below) | Trial court erred to sua sponte treat new matter as admitted; proper procedure requires motion and adversarial briefing; court corrected this on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- McConnaughey v. Building Components, Inc., 637 A.2d 1331 (Pa. 1994) (summary judgment standard)
- Weaver v. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc., 926 A.2d 899 (Pa. 2007) (appellate review of summary judgment; question of law whether genuine issues exist)
- Lindy Homes, Inc. v. Sabatini, 453 A.2d 972 (Pa. 1982) (mandamus elements: clear right, duty, lack of adequate remedy)
- Commercial Properties, Inc. v. Peternel, 211 A.2d 514 (Pa. 1965) (mandamus proper to compel issuance of a building permit when right is clear)
- Lhormer v. Bowen, 188 A.2d 747 (Pa. 1963) (permit issuance as ministerial when right is clear; mandamus appropriate)
- Gallagher v. Building Inspector, City of Erie, 247 A.2d 572 (Pa. 1968) (a right to a permit cannot be arbitrarily revoked after issuance)
- Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 812 A.2d 591 (Pa. 2002) (mootness doctrine requires an active case or controversy at all stages)
- Pelusa v. Kistner, 970 A.2d 530 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (elements of promissory estoppel)
- Gotwalt v. Dellinger, 577 A.2d 623 (Pa. Super. 1990) (procedures regarding new matter and need for motion to obtain judgment for failure to reply)
- Yount v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 966 A.2d 1115 (Pa. 2009) (trial court should not act as advocate or raise sua sponte arguments granting summary judgment)