City of Williamsport Bureau of Codes v. J. DeRaffele
655 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 6, 2017Background
- In July 2015 the Williamsport Bureau of Codes condemned 814 Hepburn St. for lack of electricity and posted a placard; a mailed notice cited Section 108.1.3 of the 2015 International Property Maintenance Code and set a compliance date of July 27, 2015.
- On July 28, 2015 the tenant restored electricity; DeRaffele’s representative left messages with the Bureau notifying them; the placard was later removed and new tenants began occupancy on September 1, 2015.
- Code Enforcement Officer Evansky rechecked the property on September 18, 2015, observed occupancy and removal of the placard, and cited DeRaffele under Section 108.5 (prohibited occupancy of placarded premises).
- A Magisterial District Judge convicted DeRaffele of violating Section 108.5; the trial court initially affirmed on de novo review but then issued a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion saying it erred and suggesting reversal.
- On appeal the Commonwealth Court considered (1) whether Williamsport had validly adopted the 2015 Maintenance Code; (2) evidentiary sufficiency/knowledge of violation; and (3) procedural/due process arguments. The court reversed, holding Williamsport never adopted the 2015 Code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City/Williamsport) | Defendant's Argument (DeRaffele) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williamsport had adopted the 2015 International Property Maintenance Code | Williamsport argued its 2004 ordinance adopting the 2003 Code incorporated subsequent versions under 11 Pa. C.S. § 11018.13(b)(1), so it could enforce the 2015 Code | DeRaffele argued Williamsport never adopted the 2015 Code and thus cannot be charged under it | Held: Williamsport did not adopt the 2015 Code; an ordinance adopting a code in 2004 cannot prospectively incorporate future, yet-to-be-written versions; reversal of conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conviction under §108.5 (permitting occupancy of placarded premises) | Williamsport relied on Evansky’s observation of occupancy and removed placard on Sept. 18, 2015 as proof DeRaffele let others occupy a condemned structure | DeRaffele argued electricity had been restored July 28 and communications with the Bureau put him on notice; placard removal and who removed it were unclear | Court did not reach merits because enforcement under 2015 Code was invalid; primary disposition rests on adoption issue |
| Due process: adequacy of notice and time to cure | City treated condemnation and compliance date as effective and enforceable | DeRaffele contended he lacked adequate notice/time to cure and cured the issue promptly | Court did not address merits after resolving adoption question |
| Trial court’s change of position via Rule 1925(a) opinion and jurisdiction to alter order | City argued trial court lacked jurisdiction to change its order outside reconsideration period | DeRaffele pointed out trial court acknowledged error and suggested reversal | Court denied city’s procedural motion to quash appeal and proceeded to merits on adoption issue; final decision reversed trial court’s order |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (standard of review and burden of proof in summary conviction de novo review)
- Protz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 161 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2017) (holding unconstitutional delegation when an outside body’s later changes control legal standards; relied on to reject prospective incorporation of future code versions)