162 A.3d 549
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Coal Tubin’ PA, LLC leased riverfront property from Cambria County Transit Authority (CamTran) and sought to buy an adjacent parcel occupied by Ron Locher (the Property).
- CamTran received notice of structural problems with Locher’s building and, in spring 2016, decided to sell the parcel rather than undertake costly repairs.
- CamTran advertised the sale in the Tribune-Democrat on April 8 and April 10, 2016 with bids due April 21; only Locher bid $31,290, and CamTran’s Board unanimously accepted that bid.
- An appraisal (excluding the portion condemned by PennDOT) placed the parcel’s estimated market value at $47,400; the sale price was approximately 35% below that figure.
- Coal Tubin’, which had repeatedly expressed interest in buying the parcel but was on military deployment during the ads, filed a Petition to Set Aside Sale alleging MAA violations; the trial court dismissed the Petition on August 1, 2016.
- On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed because Coal Tubin’ failed to file post-trial motions within Rule 227.1’s ten-day rule, thereby waiving its issues; the court declined to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CamTran violated the Municipality Authorities Act by owning/selling property not devoted to public use | Coal Tubin’ argued the sale violated the MAA and thus the sale should be set aside | CamTran argued sale complied with authority powers and sale process was proper | Waived for appeal because Coal Tubin’ failed to file required post-trial motions; court affirmed dismissal |
| Whether public/taxpayers were protected when sale went to a single bidder at ~35% below appraised value | Coal Tubin’ argued inadequate notice and uncompetitive sale harmed public interest and taxpayers | CamTran pointed to newspaper advertisement and Board approval of lone bid | Waived for appeal for same procedural reason; court did not reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Borough of Harveys Lake v. Heck, 719 A.2d 378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (failure to file post-trial motions implicates appellate jurisdiction and may be raised sua sponte)
- Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491 (Pa. 2002) (post-trial motions required to preserve claims for appeal under Rule 227.1)
- L.B. Foster Co. v. Lane Enters., Inc., 710 A.2d 55 (Pa. 1998) (issues not raised in post-trial motion are waived on appeal)
- Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pinkerton, 830 A.2d 958 (Pa. 2003) (post-trial motion requirements apply to declaratory judgment actions)
- Liparota v. State Workmen’s Ins. Fund, 722 A.2d 253 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (failure to file post-trial motions after a bench trial waives issues for appellate review)
- The Ridings at Whitpain Homeowners Ass’n v. Schiller, 811 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (listing issues in a Rule 1925(b) statement does not cure waiver caused by failure to file post-trial motions)
- City of Phila. v. New Life Evangelistic Church, 114 A.3d 472 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (failure to file post-trial motions waives issues on appeal)
- Appeal of Borough of Churchill, 575 A.2d 550 (Pa. 1990) (statutory appeals under Real Estate Tax Sale Law do not require post-trial motions—but titles of pleadings cannot change the substantive form of the action)