Borough of Shenandoah v. C.M. Cruz, Borough of Shenandoah v. C.M. Cruz

Background

Appellant Carlos M. Cruz acquired three contiguous row homes (the Race Street property) by quitclaim deed in May 2015 after the buildings partially collapsed in July 2014, causing a broken sewer and accumulation of raw sewage.
Prior to Cruz’s acquisition, the Borough issued a notice/citation and pursued his brother and sister‑in‑law for maintaining a dangerous building; they were found guilty before the magisterial district judge in April 2015.
Cruz had multiple communications with the Borough in 2014, attended hearings on behalf of his relatives, and signed for a Borough letter (Sept. 2015) informing him of transfer restrictions and notifying him of the violation.
The Borough filed an equity action under the Neighborhood Blight Reclamation and Revitalization Act and Section 1202(4) of the Borough Code in December 2015 seeking injunctive relief and demolition. A preliminary injunction was entered Feb. 9, 2016 and made permanent March 4, 2016, ordering immediate demolition and sewer repair.
Cruz did not post a conditioned supersedeas bond, did not appear at the preliminary hearing, and declined to testify at the final hearing. Testimony from Borough officials and neighbors established uncontroverted, long‑standing nuisance conditions (raw sewage, vermin, structural collapse) affecting adjacent properties.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Borough)	Defendant's Argument (Cruz)	Held
Whether Borough established a clear right to injunctive relief	Borough argued it had authority under Borough Code §1202(4) to abate/remove nuisance and presented uncontested evidence of a dangerous, unremediated structure	Cruz argued Borough failed to prove statutory prerequisites under the Neighborhood Blight Act (six‑month cure period after an order) and disputed ownership/pleading sufficiency	Court held Borough had clear right under §1202(4); allegations of ownership deemed admitted and pleading sufficed; Blight Act six‑month rule did not bar relief under §1202(4)
Whether Borough failed to plead/enforce a specific ordinance so equity relief was unauthorized	Borough relied on citation attached to complaint and factual averments showing notice and knowledge	Cruz argued equity relief requires enforcement of a specific ordinance (citing precedents) and the complaint was only a nuisance allegation	Court held complaint adequately pleaded ordinance violation (citation attached) and §1202(4) empowers equity actions to abate dangerous structures
Whether the six‑month remediation period under the Blight Act was required before suit	Borough maintained separate authority under Borough Code §1202(4) allowing suit without waiting period	Cruz contended Section 6111(1)(i) of the Blight Act required a six‑month opportunity to cure after an order to correct	Court held the Blight Act six‑month period had not run, but Borough’s §1202(4) authority independently supported relief; Blight Act timing did not preclude Borough Code remedy
Whether immediate demolition was an excessive/overbroad remedy and whether Cruz was denied reasonable time to remediate	Borough argued demolition was necessary because property was unsafe, unsalvageable, and posed ongoing harm to neighbors	Cruz argued trial court ordered immediate demolition without giving reasonable time to repair or rehabilitate	Court held immediate demolition was justified: conditions were uncontroverted, hazards severe/ongoing, prior opportunities to abate were ignored, and no practical less‑drastic alternative existed

Key Cases Cited

Penn Square Gen. Corp. v. Cnty. of Lancaster, 936 A.2d 158 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (discussing pleading/ownership issues in municipal enforcement actions)
Woodward Twp. v. Zerbe, 6 A.3d 651 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (injunction is extraordinary; standards for injunctive relief)
Big Bass Lake Cmty. Ass'n v. Warren, 950 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (mandatory injunction requires very strong showing and remedy must be narrowly tailored)
Borough of Harveys Lake v. Heck, 719 A.2d 378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (court can raise preservation defects sua sponte but may decline when record unclear)
Borough of New Bloomfield v. Wagner, 35 A.3d 839 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (analysis of ordinance validity under Borough Code provisions)
City of Erie v. Stelmack, 780 A.2d 824 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (upholding demolition where repeated opportunities to repair were ignored)
Groff v. Borough of Sellersville, 314 A.2d 328 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974) (remedy to abate nuisance should be no harsher than necessary)
King v. Twp. of Leacock, 552 A.2d 741 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (demolition is a radical remedy appropriate only when no practical alternative exists)
City of Beaver Falls v. Samuels, 414 A.2d 676 (Pa. Super. 1979) (discusses equity actions in conjunction with ordinance enforcement)