City of Philadelphia v. Urban Market Development, Inc.
48 A.3d 520
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- City sued to repair or demolish property at 5930 Walnut St. after unsafe condition posed to public safety.
- Complaint identified Urban Market Development, Inc. (UMD) as defendant, not Urban Market Developers, Inc. (title owner) with proper service addresses.
- Trial court found property unsafe and ordered demolition after multiple hearings and failure to produce an engineering report.
- UMD’s pro se owner Vaughn appealed; City moved to quash for lack of standing; appellate panel initially quashed, then reconsideration granted and caption amended.
- Record shows L&I inspector repeatedly urged engineering report and proper repairs, concluding imminent danger; demolition followed after orders not complied with.
- Court of appeals ultimately affirmed the demolition order, ruling no due process prejudice and authority to demolish under Philadelphia Code PM-307/PM-308.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did misnaming the defendant violate due process? | UMD alleges notice/prejudice due to misidentification. | City contends no prejudice; identity substantially clear. | No due process violation; notice adequate; no prejudice shown. |
| Whether there was proper notice and designation under PM-308 for imminent danger | City relied on PM-308 notices to declare imminent danger. | Only PM-307 cited; PM-308 notice required separate steps. | Trial court properly found imminent danger and authorized demolition. |
| Whether demolition was authorized under PM-307 after failure to comply with orders | Noncompliance with orders justified demolition. | Demolition not authorized without explicit deadline or safety path. | Demolition authorized under PM-307.1/PM-307.6. |
| Whether Vaughn/UMD had standing to pursue appeal | UMD asserted rights as title owner to challenge order. | City argued lack of standing; involvement of Vaughn in hearings. | UMD had standing based on notice and participation; appeal valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re McGlynn, 974 A.2d 525 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (procedural due process requires demonstrable prejudice to rights)
- Aldhelm, Inc. v. Schuylkill County Tax Claim Bureau, 879 A.2d 400 (Pa.Cmwlth.) (idem sonans doctrine supports validity despite misspelling)
- Parkview Court Associates v. Delaware County Board of Assessment Appeals, 959 A.2d 515 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (trial court credibility determinations govern fact-finding)