GAI Consultants, Inc. v. Homestead Borough
120 A.3d 417
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- The Waterfront TIF District was created to redevelop the former U.S. Steel Homestead Works site under the Tax Increment Financing Act.
- TIF Agreement (Sept. 15, 1998) established a TIF Fund and a payment priority for bond costs, infrastructure, and Net TIF Revenues to Taxing Bodies.
- Section 13 of the TIF Agreement provides refunds for assessment appeals be paid to the appropriate Taxing Body by directing funds from the TIF Fund.
- Gai Consultants sought a refund from Homestead for a 2010 assessment appeal; the Authority was ordered to pay from the TIF Fund and Homestead was joined in litigation.
- Munhall, the School District, and Allegheny County later claimed pre-2010 refunds, arguing the Authority breached Section 13 by not reimbursing them from the TIF Fund.
- Homestead appealed, arguing four-year contract limitations barred pre-2010 claims and that the TIF Agreement is not a continuing contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TIF Agreement is a continuing contract. | Munhall/County/District rely on continuity to avoid statutes. | Homestead contends it is not continuing; obligations arise on each refund event. | Yes, the TIF Agreement is a continuing contract. |
| Whether the four-year statute of limitations applies to reimbursement claims for pre-2010 refunds. | Continuing contract tolls limitations until termination (2018). | Limitations should bar pre-2010 claims if not continuing. | Not barred; continuing contract doctrine applies to extend limitations. |
| Whether discovery rule or nullum tempus apply to pre-2010 refund reimbursements. | May toll or suspend limitations given government interests. | Not necessary to address if contract continuing. | Not reached; court assumed continuing contract governs. |
| Whether Section 13 imposes an immediate payment duty or a claim-right that accrues later. | Authority must pay refunds when funds are available; rights accrue on refunds. | No fixed deadline; duties are ongoing under Section 13. | Section 13 creates ongoing obligations; no fixed due date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thorpe v. Schoenbrun, 195 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 1963) (continuity test for contracts: no definite payment time, ongoing duties)
- Miller v. Miller, 983 A.2d 736 (Pa. Super. 2009) (continuing contract for support/debts without deadlines)
- Crispo v. Crispo, 909 A.2d 308 (Pa. Super. 2006) (continuing contract agreed debts without fixed terms)
- Jodek Charitable Trust, R.A. v. Vertical Net, Inc., 412 F.Supp.2d 469 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (federal continuation concept applying contract delay in accrual)
- American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Farmers Bank and Trust Company of Hanover, 435 Pa. Super. 54 (Pa. Super. 1994) (applies accrual rules for installment payments under contract)
- Ritter v. Theodore Pendergrass Teddy Bear Productions, Inc., 356 Pa. Super. 422 (Pa. Super. 1986) (annual payments create separate causes of action when installments fixed)
- Crvi? Crispo, supra, 909 A.2d 308 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discusses continuing contracts and related accruals)