Carlino E. Brandywine, L.P. v. Brandywine Vill. Ass'n
197 A.3d 1189
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- BVA (Brandywine Village Associates) and Carlino dispute rights under a 1994 Cross Easement Agreement granting BVA (originally from the Watters) access, a sanitary sewer easement served by an on‑site package treatment plant, and a stormwater/detention easement on adjacent Watters’ land.
- BVA developed a shopping center relying on those easements; Carlino later acquired the Watters’ parcel and pursued land development that would create a public Connector Road crossing the easement areas.
- East Brandywine Township approved Carlino’s plans conditioned on construction of the Connector Road; the Township later filed a Declaration of Taking condemning BVA’s access and stormwater easements to facilitate the Connector Road.
- Carlino obtained an order requiring BVA to connect to public sewer; BVA eventually connected and decommissioned its on‑site wastewater system, after litigation and contempt proceedings, which generated attorney’s fees claimed by Carlino as sanctions.
- The trial court granted Carlino summary judgment dismissing BVA’s declaratory judgment claims as mooted/extinguished by the condemnation and prior orders, struck certain BVA submissions (e.g., Cropper affidavit/new matter), and awarded Carlino attorney’s fees as sanctions; BVA appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (BVA) | Defendant's Argument (Carlino) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court "rewrite" the Cross Easement Agreement by ordering specific performance (decommissioning POTW)? | Trial court effectively rewrote the Agreement by forcing decommissioning beyond its authority. | Trial court enforced the Agreement's mandatory connection to public sewer; specific performance was appropriate and not a rewrite. | Waived on appeal (BVA didn’t preserve this precise theory). Trial court’s specific performance/order upheld as within record. |
| Were there genuine issues of material fact about easement rights (access, stormwater, sewer) that precluded summary judgment? | There remain factual disputes and document‑based ambiguities requiring adjudication; zoning/land‑use records should be considered. | The dispute is largely contractual/documentary; condemnation and prior orders resolved the principal issues (sewer obligation enforced; condemnation extinguished access/stormwater easements). | No reversible error: trial court correctly concluded legal interpretation of documents and that condemnation and prior orders rendered BVA’s claims moot/extinguished. |
| Was the award of attorney’s fees to Carlino improper? | Fees were unjustified because BVA’s noncompliance was not contemptuous or sufficiently culpable. | BVA’s repeated delays and willful conduct in failing to timely connect to public sewer were dilatory, obdurate and vexatious, justifying fees under 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(7). | Trial court did not abuse discretion; record supported finding of dilatory/obdurate conduct and reasonableness of fees. |
| Were the trial court’s evidentiary rulings (striking Cropper affidavit, denying incorporation of zoning record, striking new matter) improper? | The trial court should have admitted the affidavit and land‑use record to create issues of fact and allow BVA’s defenses. | The affidavit was untimely/self‑serving and barred by parol evidence; incorporation of the entire zoning record was excessive and not focused on material facts; new matter asserted new causes. | Trial court’s strikes were proper: parol evidence rule supported striking the affidavit; praecipe to incorporate entire zoning record was excessive and BVA failed to identify specific relevant portions; striking portions of new matter was appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 64 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2013) (final‑order/appealability principles)
- Gubbiotti v. Santey, 52 A.3d 272 (Pa. Super. 2012) (summary judgment standard)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cummings, 652 A.2d 1338 (Pa. Super. 1994) (standard of review for declaratory judgments)
- Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425 (Pa. 2004) (parol evidence rule and integrated agreements)
- Gilmore by Gilmore v. Dondero, 582 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Super. 1990) (trial court discretion in awarding attorney’s fees)
- Wood v. Geisenhemer–Shaulis, 827 A.2d 1204 (Pa. Super. 2003) (distinction between contempt sanctions and fee awards under §2503)