Eagleview Corporate Center Ass'n v. Citadel Federal Credit Union
150 A.3d 1024
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Citadel purchased an office building in the Eagleview Planned Community and installed rooftop HVAC condensing units in 2010.
- The Eagleview Corporate Center Association (Association) enforces covenants in the Declaration, which requires exterior equipment to be placed or screened so as not to cause visual distraction and, if visible from an interior roadway, to be separately screened as approved by the Architectural Control Committee (Art. VIII §8.3(c)).
- The Association sued in 2011 seeking removal of the rooftop units and an injunction; Citadel counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment approving the rooftop equipment and proposed screening plans.
- On January 23, 2014, the trial court denied the Association’s injunction, granted Citadel’s declaratory judgment that the rooftop units were authorized by the Declaration, and stated the units are subject to the Declaration’s screening requirement; it did not order any specific action or timetable.
- The Association later filed a 2016 petition to compel Citadel to implement screening (and sought fees); the trial court granted the petition, ordered screening consistent with certain exhibits, and awarded attorney fees to the Association.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed the March 8, 2016 order, holding the January 23, 2014 declaratory judgment did not command action and the petition to compel was premature; it remanded Citadel’s request for fees for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Association) | Defendant's Argument (Citadel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the petition to compel proper (did Jan. 23, 2014 order require action)? | The Jan. 2014 order made Citadel’s equipment "subject to" screening and thus enforceable; petition seeks enforcement. | The Jan. 2014 declaratory judgment did not order Citadel to act; petition to compel was effectively a modification and untimely. | The court held the Jan. 2014 declaration did not command action; the petition to compel was premature and lacked foundation. |
| 2. Could the trial court order separate screening in the subsequent proceeding? | Screening was an issue in prior litigation (Citadel’s counterclaim and exhibits showed screening plans); screening relief is appropriate. | Neither party sought a screening order in the initial proceeding; trial court lacked authority to impose new affirmative relief later. | Court declined to decide the merits because the petition to compel was improvidently filed; remanded without ruling on screening order. |
| 3. Equitable estoppel (did Association’s prior statements bar it from now seeking screening?) | Association denies making a binding promise; equitable estoppel inapplicable. | Association had told Citadel screening was unacceptable; Citadel relied to its detriment and should be protected by estoppel. | Trial court made no finding of inducement or justifiable reliance; estoppel claim deemed premature. |
| 4. Attorney fees (award to Association; Citadel’s fee claim) | Declaration authorizes recovery of fees when Association’s enforcement action is successful; Association prevailed and is entitled to fees. | Association waived fee claim by not arguing fees at the hearing; statutory authorization lacking for fees to enforce a court order; Citadel sought fees under 42 Pa.C.S. §2503(9). | Because the March 8, 2016 order was reversed, the Association’s fee award is set aside; Citadel’s request for fees on appeal is remanded to the trial court for decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 471 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 1984) (declaratory judgments illuminate existing legal rights and relations)
- Geisinger Clinic v. Di Cuccio, 606 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 1992) (purpose of declaratory relief is to settle and make certain rights/status)
- Petition of Kariher, 131 A. 265 (Pa. 1925) (declaratory judgments stand alone and do not automatically carry executory process)
- Advanced Management Research, Inc. v. Emanuel, 266 A.2d 673 (Pa. 1970) (distinguishing final decrees that contemplate performance of a series of acts from standalone declarations)
- Novelty Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Siskind, 457 A.2d 502 (Pa. 1983) (elements of equitable estoppel: inducement and justifiable reliance)
- Berg v. Georgetown Builders, Inc., 822 A.2d 810 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standards for awarding counsel fees under statute for arbitrary, vexatious, or bad-faith litigation)
- Thunberg v. Strause, 682 A.2d 295 (Pa. 1996) (factors for determining bad-faith litigation and awarding fees)