Hidden Creek, L.P. v. Lower Salford Township Authority
129 A.3d 602
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- Hidden Creek, L.P. (Developer) agreed in 1998 to construct sewer lines and purchase 90 EDUs from Lower Salford Township Authority (Authority); Agreement set tapping fee at $6,875 per EDU (later raised to $7,000 by a 1999 resolution). Developer paid fees between Jan 1999 and Jan 2000 (54 paid; 36 credited).
- Developer filed a writ of summons in 2000 and a First Amended Complaint in 2006 seeking refund of allegedly excessive tapping fees under the Municipal Authorities Act (MAA), plus interest and costs.
- Authority moved for summary judgment in 2014 arguing (1) the two-year statute of limitations bars the claim and (2) governmental immunity under the Tort Claims Act bars recovery; the trial court denied summary judgment and this interlocutory appeal followed.
- Central factual dispute: whether Developer’s cause of action accrued at the Agreement execution (when obligation arose) or at payment (or discovery of the error), and whether the Authority’s resolutions complied with the MAA’s required itemization (which would affect discoverability).
- The court affirmed denial of summary judgment: found accrual at execution as a legal point but held factual issues remain about application of the discovery rule because the Authority’s resolutions lacked required itemized calculations, and held MAA creates a statutory accountability exception to governmental immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 2-year statute of limitations begin to run for Developer's refund claim? | Accrual occurs upon payment of allegedly excessive tapping fees (so claim timely from first payment). | Accrual occurs when Agreement was executed (Developer became obligated and knew the fee), so limitations ran from execution. | Accrual point is the Agreement execution (injury arose when obligation to pay arose), but material factual questions about discoverability remain, so summary judgment on timeliness was denied. |
| Is the Authority entitled to governmental immunity under the Tort Claims Act for Developer's statutory claim under the MAA? | MAA expressly allows suits to challenge rates and to sue authorities; recovery of unlawfully collected fees is a targeted accountability outside Tort Claims Act immunity. | Tort Claims Act generally shields local agencies from liability. | MAA creates a targeted accountability outside the scope of governmental immunity; immunity does not bar Developer’s claim to recover unlawfully collected fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harleysville Homestead, Inc. v. Lower Salford Township Authority, 980 A.2d 749 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (two-year limitations applies to MAA tapping-fee refund claims)
- Petticord v. Joyce, 578 A.2d 632 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (grounds for treating similar fee disputes as sounding in tort for limitations purposes)
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (statute of limitations begins when right to sue arises)
- Dalrymple v. Brown, 701 A.2d 164 (Pa. 1997) (articulating Pennsylvania discovery rule standard)
- Gleason v. Borough of Moosic, 15 A.3d 479 (Pa. 2011) (when discovery-rule accrual is a question of fact for jury unless facts are so clear otherwise)
- Meyer v. Community College of Beaver County, 2 A.3d 499 (Pa. 2010) (governmental immunity analysis is not strictly tort/contract dichotomy)
- Dorsey v. Redman, 96 A.3d 332 (Pa. 2014) (statutes can create targeted accountability outside Tort Claims Act immunity)
- Todd v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 692 A.2d 1086 (Pa. 1997) (court will not presume legislature intended an absurd result when statutes create remedies)