F.A. Properties Corp. v. City of Philadelphia
F.A. Properties Corp. v. City of Philadelphia - 122 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Mar 6, 2017Background
- In 1988 F.A. Properties bought three apartment buildings in Philadelphia; one was fire-damaged and L&I cited the premises as imminently dangerous and a public nuisance.
- The Philadelphia trial court ordered remediation and, after noncompliance, entered a December 1, 1993 permanent injunction authorizing demolition (the "demolition order").
- F.A. Properties sought relief (a petition to vacate and an emergency order from another judge), but did not obtain a stay; the City allegedly demolished the property during the pendency of the emergency order.
- F.A. Properties litigated in federal court (1996), alleging violations tied to the demolition and the emergency order; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, a decision the Third Circuit affirmed. The district court explained post-deprivation state remedies and procedural deadlines (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush principle).
- In 2015 F.A. Properties filed an Amended Petition under the Eminent Domain Code asserting a de facto taking based on the prior demolition; the PRA/ PHA/City objected, arguing res judicata/collateral estoppel. The trial court sustained the objections and dismissed with prejudice. The Commonwealth Court affirmed and remanded to assess appellate counsel fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether F.A. Properties’ de facto taking petition is precluded by res judicata/collateral estoppel | The demolition order was invalid ab initio and appeal was moot, so prior adjudications do not bar a taking claim | The same factual/issue core was litigated previously; F.A. Properties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate/appeal, so issue preclusion applies | Court: preclusion applies; petition dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether the demolition order deprived F.A. Properties of due process such that collateral attack is permitted | The demolition resulted from procedural defects and failure to honor the emergency order, creating a due process violation | Prior state remedies and appeals were available; failure to pursue them does not create a federal due process violation | Court: no due process violation that saves a late collateral attack; prior opportunities made claim precluded |
| Whether filing defects in Objectors’ preliminary objections (prematurity; missing notice to plead) required dismissal | Objections were premature and defective so should be stricken | Preliminary objections are proper pre-viewer and failure to attach notice to plead is not a basis to strike the defense | Court: objections were procedurally proper; F.A. Properties’ procedural claims were without merit |
| Whether the appeal was frivolous and warranting counsel fees under Pa. R.A.P. 2744 | Appeal sought relief on merits of de facto taking and alleged invalidity of demolition order | Appeal lacked likelihood of success given prior final rulings and legal bar by preclusion; fees justified | Court: appeal frivolous; remanded to trial court to set reasonable attorney’s fees |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., 143 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (states collateral estoppel elements for issue preclusion)
- Weney v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Mac Sprinkler Systems, Inc.), 960 A.2d 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (explains umbrella of res judicata and claim preclusion)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1982) (due process requires opportunity for meaningful hearing; state procedural remedies can satisfy due process)
- Department of Commerce v. Casey, 624 A.2d 247 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (standard for awarding appellate counsel fees for frivolous appeals)
- Henion v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Firpo & Sons, Inc.), 776 A.2d 362 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (elements for technical res judicata / claim preclusion)